Watson’s Lecture Canceled
Published by Greg October 18th, 2007 in Race and Racism, Science Essays, CommentaryJames Watson (see this) of DNA fame was slated to speak on Friday at London’s Science Museum. Earlier this week he made remarks asserting that humanity can be divided into different groups, with one or more groups being intellectually superior to other groups (a so-called “White” group is in superior group, a “Black” group is the inferior group) and specifically, that “Africans” are inferior.
Although many have attributed this to a misunderstanding (indicating that he didn’t really say it or didn’t really mean it) while still others claim that he is correct, it is in fact the case that he did make these remarks, he’s made similar remarks over quite a long time in the past, and his remarks are utterly indefensible, scientifically.
In any event, group organizers have canceled Friday’s lecture owing to these remarks.
Most of Watson’s racist remarks over the last decade or so exactly mirror the rhetoric of J. Philippe Rushton, of the University of Western Ontario, Canada. Rushton has, over the years, compiled extensive data, much of which is considered bogus, showing that there is a correlation between, essentially, skin color, brain size, intelligence, and various aspects of sexuality.
In Rushton’s model, “White” People have average IQ’s of about 102, are only moderately sexual, and have a gestation period of about 9 months.
In contrast, “Black” people have an IQ averaging about 80, a high and difficult to control sex drive, and a measurably shorter gestation length.
“Oriental” people have an average IQ of somewhat over 100, and a diminished sex drive.
Rushton argues that these differences are deep and genetic, owing to thousands of years of genetic evolution as separate subspecies. Ruston’s research is explicitly the basis for parallel assertions made in Murray and Herrnstein’s book “The Bell Curve.” In the Bell Curve, Murray and Herrnstein make the argument that whatever the cause of these differences, they are immutable or at least economically impossible to really overcome, and thus society must simply adjust to them. For instance, if girls can’t, on average, really learn math, then programs that encourage girls to take math classes and to try harder in math are a waste of money and should not be funded. Similarly, if one of the characteristics (as asserted by Rushton and taken up by Murray and Herrnstein) is that “Blacks” can’t lead, then efforts to recruit “Blacks” into leadership roles are a waste of time and should not be funded with tax dollars.
There are a number of false assumptions and highly suspicious, if not totally bogus, data sets used to develop these arguments. For instance, IQ is known to have a high heritability value. Heritability is a correlational statistic that indicates the likelihood that if one individual has a certain trait (in this case, a certain IQ) that another individual will have that same trait based on degree of relatedness.
But correlation does not necessarily imply causality. This is a cautionary statement hardly ever mentioned when heritability comes up in discussion, although it usually does come up when correlation is mentioned. This indicates to me that most people don’t realize that heritability is about correlation, as well as about variance.
With respect to the latter (variance) it is worht considering heritability in a bit more detail, because it is very often misused, especially in the present discussion.
For instance note that the heritability of how many heads you have … head number across Hom sapiens … is 0. Head number has a heratibility coeficient of zero.
If Heritability is equal to “genetic” or “likelihood that a trait … such as intelligence … is passed on by genes” then Having one head is notinherited, or the number of heads you have is not genetic.
In truth, heritability is too limited of a measure to use it to investigate a trait like intelligence, represented by what is usually called “IQ” or any similar statistic or any nominal characteristic (”can lead” vs. “not good leaders” etc.).
Heritability does not distinguish in and of itself between traits passed on with genes from traits passed on via culture, learning, environment, and so on. For instance, which language a person speaks has a very high heritability value, but this “trait” is entirely, 100% learned with absolutely no genetic component whatsoever. Twin studies have been used to suggest that IQ has a component of heritability that is genetic since it is more correlated in twins than in, say, full sibs. However, non-genetic traits can follow the same pattern. Non-genetic traits can show this pattern because, with respect to environments, full sibs who are not twins do not share the same environment as twins. (And for other reasons.)
Another attempt at showing that IQ is genetically determined by using correlational analysis, carried out by University of Minnesota “Twin” Researchers as part of the famous twin studies, was to examine differences and correlations among twins who were separated at birth. If one can re-unite individuals who were separated at the time they were born and then raised in different environments, one would have an interesting set of data to look at heritability.
These “separated at birth” studies were heavily criticized when it was realized by the consumers of these research reprots that non, or almost none, of the twin sets were really separated at birth. Most were cases of two individuals at some point in their childhood being parceled out into different units of an extended family. For example, I myself was raised, according to the Twin Study criteria, separately from my brother because he lived upstairs and I lived downstairs in a two-family house. But in fact, we were simply a large family spread out across two flats, and at no point during my childhood did we distinguish among these two areas as different “apartments.” But the Twin Studies criteria would have put my brother and I in the “separated” category (… I quickly add, we are not twins, but you get the point).
Rushton’s research has been criticized in other ways as well. His categories are not valid groupings .. for instance, his brain size data for “Orientals” is mainly from Thailand, but is “IQ” data for “Orientals” is mainly from Japan. He uses a number around 70 for the IQ of “Africans” from Africa, as opposed, say, to African Americans. This number is from a single set of tests given several decades ago in South Africa. The test was invalid. It consisted of a non-written (visual) test developed by Yerkes during World War I for use by the US Army but rejected after a short time because it seemed useless. The test included numerous culturally-bound questions, such as one question where two tennis players are shown on a court with no net. The viewer is asked to indicate what is missing in the picture (”The Net” being the correct answer). The test was administered to Zulu middle school age girls who would never have seen a tennis court. The fact that they “scored” a 70 on the test is testament to their intelligence … they did about as well as Irish and Italian Americans did on this test early in the 20th century.
The problems with Rushton’s data are myriad. Brain size information is actually estimated, for most of the data, from skull size, but the skull size measure is actually a hat-size measurement taken while conscripts were entering the army, or something similar, not measured with calibrated instruments. The raw “hat size” data is converted based on a “skull thickness” calibration that Rushton, in turn, based on highly selected data. For instance, even though we know that some of the thinnest-skulled populations in the world are African, Rushton picked some of the thickest-skulled specimens available to create an African “Skull Thickness” fudge factor. In this way, estimated brain size for the “Black” part of his data set were reduced across the board with an invalid adjustment. In essence the brain size calculation involved, variously, something like: Take a hat size from army data, then estimate brain size using a formula that assumes the individual has an extra thick skull if they are “Black,” an extra thin skull if they are “Oriental” and an average skull if they are “White.”
A possibly even greater effect comes from another fudge factor in which Rushton uses an invalid set of assumptions, and associated invalid formulae, to adjust brain size given assumptions about body size. The way this works is too complex to go into here. Suffice it to say that this fudge factor guaranteed an incorrect reduction in brain size for each point in the “Black” data set.
In short, Rushton’s data are bad and his analysis is highly questionable, to the extent that one must question not only his analysis but also his motives; the Bell Curves’ incorporation of these bogus data … in a book that was only published because of the availability of funding from highly conservative organizations with a history of supporting racist doctrine … is highly questionable and generally offensive; and James Watson’s remarks, which clearly state that Africans are an inferior race, based in turn on this information, are outrageous.
If it was me, though, it would not have occurred to me to ban him from speaking.
33 Responses to “Watson’s Lecture Canceled”
- 1 Pingback on Oct 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
- 2 Pingback on Oct 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
- 3 Pingback on Oct 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
- 4 Pingback on Oct 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Greg,
1. Watson wasn’t banned from speaking. He was disinvited from giving a lecture at a prestigious institution. Nothing prevents him from setting up a soapbox in St. James Park and ranting to passerby along with the other loons.
Well, maybe local ordinances do, but you get the point. Many of us are never invited, let alone disinvited, to speak at London Science Museum. And for good reasons. But the reason why, say, I am not invited to address their audience (because I know nothing worth sharing about science) pales in comparison to the reason why Watson was disinvited (whatever his achievements, he’s an ignorant racist pretending his prejudices are scientifically sound and that constitutes intellectual fraud of the worst sort).
2. The scientific information you provide is extremely interesting and I look forward to your book. In this context, however, the main issue is Watson’s inexcusable bigotry, not arguments about data. The intricacies of the twin studies won’t convince him, the problems with Rushton’s data set are easily finessed by bigots, and the arguments that ensue from discussing these points in detail helps raise the status of those yearning to cloak their racism with intellectual respectability. How can a layperson disentangle all the arguments? S/he can’t.
I think your previous post was exactly right. Watson is a dim bulb, albeit a lucky one, and a first class bigot. End of story. Regarding the issues surrounding Rushton’s bogus data as well issues of heritability and iq, the best time, imo, to discuss that is when sensible, rational people - not bigots - are setting the agenda.
Within this context, it strikes me as besides the point, which begins and ends with Watson’s disgraceful racism.
Thanks for a readable explanation.
I don’t understand why IQ tests are believed to represent anything meaningful except when used in limited and controlled ways.
In the few recent interviews, Watson has insulted my son (he’s autistic and it has not lead to “horror and destruction” of my life, and thankfully, his aim to “prevent some [autism-prone] families having subsequent children” was not effected either.) He’s insulted my husband, the most clever man I know (anecdote, I know) and of black Jamaican parentage, and he’s insulted myself and my daughter, with his various misogynistic ramblings.
It’s his right to be insulting if he wants, but it’s a pity he gets a platform to spread these ridiculous rantings, on the basis of a lucky break 40 odd years ago.
Oh, and for all those saying ‘what if it’s true?’, those making the extraordinary claims, (that black people have lower intelligence than ‘us’, (and who is included in this ‘us’), should be providing the convincing evidence.
You are right Greg, Generalized intelligence is a very murky concept at best, and maybe rather meaningless. If it really is a unitary trait how would you explain “idiot savants” and other child prodigies?
Then the testing method itself was developed in a white educated world, and there is no reason to suppose it is transferable to another culture in a meaningful way.
Furthermore, the more we learn about human behavior, the more plastic it appears to be, with feedback loops that effect genetic switching.
If we think of a muscle, the result of genetics, and then the forms it can take, depending on the environment, the plasticity is obvious. It seems likely that vague behavioral traits would be likely more plastic. So barring some major and obvious genetic defect, it would seem obvious that any comparison of intelligence across groups of normal people by race, sex or religion (well I might make an exception for religion) is bogus. How come Watson does not know this?
Heritability is the proportion of observed variation due to variation in some (unknown) set of genes that affect a particular trait. First, that means if no variation exists the concept of heritability is meaningless. As you pointed out the heritability of having 1 head is zero. That doesn’t mean we don’t inherit genes for one head. By the same token, language does not have a high heritability because it does not vary with genetic relatedness. In most cases people who live near each other speak the same language, whether they are identical twins, half-siblings, or simply unrelated neighbors. Therefore, the heritability of English speaking is also zero.
Defries, J., McGuffin, P. & McLearn, G. (2000). Behavioral Genetics, 4th ed. Worth Publishers.
Carol,
Technically, you are correct yet at the same time incorrect. Heritability is never actually a measure of genetic inheritance. For that to be the case, it would have to actually measure genetic inheritance. It measures, instead, the amount of variation in a “trait” that correlates with independently measured or presumed genetic relatedness. That is what the heritability coefficient actually is.
The linkage to genetic inheritance is presumed and the argument for that has to be advanced independently. In other words, heritability is a proxyindicator, and the degree to which it actually measures “the thing” (in this case genetic contribution) is an assumption that is sometimes reasonable and sometimes not.
The reason why heritability measures IQ as genetic and not which language you speak is because of the assumption that IQ is genetic and what language you speak is not genetic. The heritability coefficient can’t tell the difference between the two cases … it can’t indicate that when you are measuring “which language” as a trait that you are not measuring something that is passed on in genes as different alleles for different languages (or whatever). Nor can the coefficient “tell” that if you are measuring “IQ” that you are actually measuring a thing that is (or is not) determined by variation among alleles for specific genes.
Thank you very much for your input.
Thanks for this calmer approach to debunking myths about race. Especially this last bit:
One thing: do you have a citation for this:
It’s been a while, but I thought they drew the opposite conclusion: if there turn out to be inherited differences in intelligence/IQ/heart-disease risk/what-have-you between races/ethnicities/socioeconomic strata/sexes, then our society should allocate more of its resources to the underprivileged groups in order to level the playing field. I know I’ve heard that argument before - “treat equal opportunity as a goal, not an assumption” - but I don’t remember if it was from Herrnstein & Murray.
Oh, by the way, if there are any Watson apologists still around. It is one thing to contemplate the possibility of intelligence differences between groups (this, while dumb it should not be banned on th basis of political correctness) and on this alone I might not disinvite Watson. But can anyone tell me how this quote is not pure racism:
“He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”
As one who has worked with, for ,and has also had employees of African decent, I can attest this is untrue an clearly racist bullshit.
I only skimmed the book, rather than sitting down and reading every word, but I remember an overwhelmingly negative view of social interventions, poor coverage of the programs which worked to narrow school performance, and statements like “affirmative action, in education and the workplace alike, is leaking a poison into the American soul.”
Epi:
No, they are quite clear. The citation is just the Bell Curve, I don’t have it handy, but it’s the first one or two chapters, plus in much of their other writing and speaking
And if most people had to choose between four more points on their IQ, or a significantly increased sex drive, which do you think they’d choose?
Who says it’s inferior, if it’s more highly valued? Rushton doesn’t know economics, either. I suppose that would be one more field for him to screw up, if he tried.
I like the metaphors of intelligence measurement where say, one compares the “learned” skills of the modern world against the learned skills of the ancient world–like a nomadic pygmy versus modern humans:
the pygmy can learn modern world functions( driving, food acquisition, etc) in a year or so, but the moderner cannot overcome their disgust at eating dirt encrusted half raw bushmeat, or find a tuber if their life depends on it.
I.E. how smart is it to NOT know basic human survival skills, etc.?
Greg, would you please comment on this paper? I’d be interested in seeing whether you think the authors are bigots and racists.
Is it possible that the reporter messed up?
Quote from Telegraph: “To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
More on Watson: http://www.lifeinresearch.com
Larry,
In theory, I’m reviewing that book. At least the publishers are sending it to me, but It may have gone missing in the mail.
Cheers,
Greg
Greg,
I was referring to a particular paper. You don’t hesitate to call Watson a racist based on a newspaper interview and I’m curious to see if this standard applies to similar remarks in a published scientific paper that disagrees with your position.
Hey, Larry, lighten up!
My “position” has two parts. One is about the science of race and racism, the other is about the politics. Perhaps I was wrong to interpret a statement like “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really, …” and, in reference to the falsehood that all humans are equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”….as not scientifically correct and as being racist, but so far I’m sticking to my guns. This fits the larger pattern with Watson. The fact that I did not ignore this and the fact that I jumped on it is political, but I’m not interested in making political arguments … just scientific ones … but the fact that this is an interest of mine is probably because I’m a humanist, a liberal, and because my myriad connections with diversity issues and with Africa cause me to get more annoyed than the average person at broad, widely sweeping disparaging remarks, many about loved ones. In a way, its not only political but also personal.
But I’m not interested in politically derived or modified arguments. Just the science. I would feel really bad if the science did not allow me to make this argument, but it just happens that it does.
And, James Watson does not need me to be nice to him.
As far as an assertion that a particular set of Jews are a subrace or race that is genetically smarter than others: That is the same exact kind of statement that Africans or people with black skin, or whatever, are less smart. It is not a matter of “my position.” It is a matter of somebody being wrong.
We have, on this site anyway, not discussed the fact that neural development in humans does not really allow for much influence from genetics in the way that is asserted by the Rushtonian race argument; we have seen some discussion that the allegations that intelligence = g = IQ = something measurable in a simple way = something that varies across individuals because of allelic differences in some set of genes. But there are a LOT of reasons to not accept this idea, aside from the major disconnect between the genome and the functioning of the brain owing to the actual way real brains actually develop in real life. There has been very little discussion regarding the disconnect between the concept of heritability and the concept of subspecies in animals (race is simply another term for subspecies).
There are so many levels at which this is so wrong that I can’t help but feel … and I’ve said this already … that the Race Concept and the intelligence piece of this are simply not valid scientific arguments, and are almost always either political arguments or arguments being made from ignorance. They are political in their motivation, because the science here is simply operating in a totally different place (a little place I call reality).
I gotta tell you, Larry, the implication, just in case anyone is making it, that I would ignore or even favor an argument that Jews are Smarter makes me feel bad. This kind of argument is what I call “first order benign racism” … it seems OK to say something like this because it is a nice thing to say. Oh, and Blacks can dance, have sense of rhythm, and are great athletes. And so on.
The arguments are scientifically invalid, so like it or not, you can’t say that X is “better” than everyone else (where X is a “race”) even if it feels somehow good to say it. So politically or socially or whatever you might want to say it, but it is not scientifically valid.
But beyond that, politically speaking, there is nothing whatsoever about this “benign” form of racism, if one examines it even briefly (I won’t bother here). It is still racism.
Hey, I just checked my mailbox again. The book has not arrived. I think maybe they read my blog and decided I should not review this piece after all.
Larry, I’m snowed under right now. In time (not too much time) I will look at, and likely comment on, the article you pointed me to. I’ve got it bookmarked in my bookmark folder of stuff to read and write about.
Cheers,
Greg
I was trying to comment over at Sandwalk, but for some reason I am not being allowed to sign in…sorry for cluttering up your blog, Greg, but I’m taking the easy out to post a response here.
Larry:
I had a look at that paper myself. Yes, to precisely the degree that being an Ashkenazi Jew is a “race”, then this is racist; it is postulating a genetic basis for a trait where there is no evidence that (a) the trait is real and not a statistical anomaly or an artifact due to the nature of the tests, (b) the trait is consistent to the haplotype, or (c) that it is not accounted for by culture and education. Speaking as someone whose father’s family is Jewish, there is one heck of a cultural pressure to concentrate in certain areas in education, and do well at them — this isn’t genetic, though it *is* heritable, via cultural identity and parental pressure.
IF, on the other hand, one were to say, “there is a distinct social pressure on urban black males from their peers NOT to do well in school”, or alternatively “European Jews appear to be overrepresented in mathematically-oriented careers” — that is not racist, because, first and foremost, it is not making a statement about some supposed immutable characteristic of a “race”, it is an observation specific to a population in a specific environment; the fact that it has some evidence behind it is a bonus.
On a side note, your apologetics for Watson are a bit sickening in and of themselves. Sanders (on Sandwalk) is right. If Watson says straight-up racist things, and says them with a straight face, then precisely what makes him different from a “real” public racist? Exactly how much of a break should we cut him because “he’s just yanking the PC crowd’s chain”, given that he is repeating false information in an environment which ALREADY has a problem with (a) racism, and (b) the media picking up anything that could vaguely be construed as genetic determinism (like the “gay gene”) and running? …If someone said in an interview “yeah, women shouldn’t be taking up all those jobs which should go to men who have to support those families,” and then turned around and claimed not to be sexist, really, think that would fly? I don’t. The thought to say such a thing in a serious fashion comes from somewhere.
If, as you claim, Watson’s organisation doesn’t tolerate REAL racism, then they should be speaking up now. Because otherwise it sure looks like they do. And Watson…sorry, he’s been way too consistent on this kind of thing to be merely yanking chains. Your excuses for him are …reaching, at best, and looking rather like a Christian apologist defending “evidence for God” at worst.
Besides, even your quote from the reporter says:
Even after a year at the lab, I am still unnerved by his devil-may-care compulsion to say what he believes.
So he’s not just “courting controversy” — he’s saying what he believes. And this makes him not a racist, how?
Ah, I spoke predictively about Watson’s organisation needing to take steps. This just in: The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory board of trustees has suspended Watson, “pending further deliberation by the board”.
Cats have ESP
Cats can see in the dark. Cats can walk through walls. Much more useful than ESP, usually, except for the fact that I usually get a few quid out of the Grand National.
re, reporter quote: Who said reporters these days actually are worth a shit? The righties routinely slaughter good journalism in favor of corporate pitches, and the lefties routinely use selective and out of context quotes
“Even after a year at the lab, I am still unnerved by his devil-may-care compulsion to say what he believes.”
Who knows the exact context of that quote? Only the reporter who took it out of many others that were in the notebook.
And, re, Watson: perhaps he is one of many old white guys who is mercilessly surrounded by the PC white folk (the “good white people”)who go on and on and on…abouit how the “white man” runs, controlls, and owns everything; how whitey sucks. It is that hidden and ‘benign’ racism that the entitled PC employ that could easily drive a fellah into wanting to give some shit back to them;-)
We have yet to see the complete science on race and intelligence. In their zeal to race for publication, most scientists stake their reputations on unfinished work. We haven’t seen the final word on this subject and most likely won’t for some time. Those who draw their conclusions (at either end of the argument) risk having to wash egg from their faces. In the meantime, let demographics show us the path to enlightenment and leave the Politically Correct crap in the toilet… where it belongs.
DM: Well, no. There are incontrovertible realities that allow us to reject certain hypotheses at this time. We are just now starting to see more of your sort of argument. It really is appalling.
You might be more concerned with “political correctness” if it was your life being ruined by the thoughtlessness of some of the crap we see disguised as science.
Or perhaps I misunderstand you! Feel free to elaborate.
As PhD biochemist, I find it amusing how easily non-scientists dismiss a Nobel Laureate’s opinions.
I know, I know, he’s not that smart and stole everything from dear old Dr. Franklin - right? Well I’ve met the man, and he is extremely bright, and on this matter he is probably correct. Blacks do score significantly lower on IQ tests - this is a fact. If this is due to cultural bias, then the challenge is obvious - design a test in which blacks perform equally or better. You think this hasn’t been tried?
Let’s begin with our approach to this argument. Obviously there are innumerable documented biological (ie genetic) differences between the races - agreed? Why is it then that the governing assumption of this debate is that the most genetically complex process and organ of our human condition, intellect and the brain, must be absolutely conserved? This is back-asswards.
It yokes the burden of proof for any dissenter of this “sameness postulate” with the duty to prove that racial intellectual potentials are not identical. Clearly any scientist realizes that proving a negative is a much harder scientific proposition. So why not the reverse? To most scientists the simplest explanation has the fewest ancillary assumptions and is judged to be correct until proven wrong. How about: “white’s brains are somewhat different than black’s, just as their bodies are”. Occam’s Razor anyone? I’m waiting for your proof of absolute sameness!
Some day soon Watson’s assesment may be verified, better start preparing…
As a PhD biological anthropologist I find it astounding that fellow scientists can ignore the fact that biological anthropologists have been saying that the concept of “races” (”race” or now, fashionably, “demes”) in humans is useless. Your premise, Dan, is invalid. Please rethink.
Greg:
“He uses a number around 70 for the IQ of “Africans” from Africa, as opposed, say, to African Americans. This number is from a single set of tests given several decades ago in South Africa. The test was invalid. It consisted of a non-written (visual) test developed by Yerkes during World War I for use by the US Army but rejected after a short time because it seemed useless.”
where did you got that? (it likely is a cut and paste from a reply to Rushton written by someone else but I’d like to know the source) Rushton went to South Africa to test black university students with the Raven Progressive Matrices test. First year psychology students had an average of 84
at 9 minutes:
http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~li7vcs
Greg:
“Brain size information is actually estimated, for most of the data, from skull size, but the skull size measure is actually a hat-size measurement taken while conscripts were entering the army, or something similar, not measured with calibrated instruments.”
he has also used Magnetic Resonance Imaging data, not simply army helmet measurements.
Greg:
“the Bell Curves’ incorporation of these bogus data”
you have to back that up. How does the Bell Curve rely on Rushton to assert anything? How many references are there to Rushton’s studies/work in TBC? I don’t have the book but here’s what I found in 30 seconds with Google:
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REP.....erson.html
quote:
“Dr. Armelagos not only misrepresents the book, but — like Dr. Boli — also asserts that it is a work of moral corruption. He refers to its “reliance” on “patently racist” studies by Lynn and Rushton, without indicating what “reliance” means. On two occasions, The Bell Curve utilizes summaries of data provided by Lynn, but Lynn’s work is hardly the Archimedean point of the book. On one occasion (as I indicated in my original discussion), they consider one of Rushton’s hypotheses and conclude that the evidence supporting it is inconclusive. (Boli, too, continues to say that Murray and Herrnstein have adopted the Rushton hypothesis.)”
looks like you’re speaking through your ass.
Greg:
“But beyond that, politically speaking, there is nothing whatsoever about this “benign” form of racism, if one examines it even briefly (I won’t bother here). It is still racism.”
TLB, typical liberal behavior: your concern about ‘racism’ is clearly way above any concern about scientific discoveries. A honest scientist wouldn’t mind discovering or acknowledging racial differences because he could separate his morality from the reality. But you obviously can’t.
Greg:
“I find it astounding that fellow scientists can ignore the fact that biological anthropologists have been saying that the concept of “races” (”race” or now, fashionably, “demes”) in humans is useless.”
Forensic anthropologists can tell the race of a skeleton by examining the skull, even the racially mixed ones (saw it on the FBI’s website). Unless you think bones are a social construction you simply have to recognize that there are racial differences, whether you like it or not. Medicine is beginning to produce race specific drugs. Can you believe it? those racist researchers are trying to help people of various races. It’s outrageous!
Leave your morals for moral debates, if you can.
VLC: Instead of googling about the bell curve, why not try to actually look at the book? I recommend Appendix 4.
This remark of yours reminded me of something (I know you’re not stating your own opinions here):
“For instance, if girls can’t, on average, really learn math, then programs that encourage girls to take math classes and to try harder in math are a waste of money and should not be funded.”
In general, people like Watson forget that we’re not talking either/or, we’re talking at best, more/less. Human males are generally taller than human females; that doesn’t mean that women are not-tall. Girls can and do learn math. Even if it were true that they were somehow congenitally less capable than boys, it would still be worthwhile to teach them what they can learn. Most boys, on average, are not Einstein. By the scientific racists’ logic, this would mean it’s a waste of money to teach math and physics to boys, because 99% of them will not be Einsteins. Similarly, how many white boys are going to grow up to play like Michael Jordan? So, white boys shouldn’t be taught to play basketball; it’s a waste of time. For that matter, don’t girls generally score better on verbal skills than boys? So, it’s a waste of time and money to teach boys to read or write. They’ll never be any good at it.
As for Watson’s losing his position — boo hoo hoo, now I suppose he’ll have to put his wife out on the street to hustle her body, because he won’t be able to support himself otherwise. There are, I suppose, free speech issues involved. But if the man has any hiring/firing power, he has made it clear that his biases will affect his hiring. He was also quoted, I notice, as saying that they’d just hired a “black girl,” (a pretty one, I’m sure) but there’s no one to recruit out there. Given what we know about perception, I think it’s probable that Watson couldn’t see a qualified person of color in most cases. Now he’s got his token, he doesn’t need to look any more. Someone like that shouldn’t have institutional power. Nor does his former institution need a loose-lipped racist as a spokesman.
I was just rereading Richard Lewontin’s NYRB review of “The Mismeasure of Man” this afternoon. As some other commenter pointed out, age really is not an excuse for Watson; the stupid and vicious things he said were discredited decades ago. That he still believes and says them shows that he wants to believe them.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/.....th_296.php