It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA pioneer stripped of honours amid 'reckless' race remarks.

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Just another way to do away with facts that hurt someone's feelings. Facts and science don't matter....only how people who are to dumb to understand the information feel matters.




posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

The biggest difference in a person with a higher IQ and one with a lesser IQ is in the number of times it takes for them to learn a concept.

A child with an IQ of 135 will pick it up with only 1 exposure, assuming they don't already know it because they picked it up on their own before coming to school. These kids and the ones with IQs even higher will be the ones who teach themselves to read and do complex math before they hit kindergarten because they want to do it and can.

A child with an IQ of 115 to the high 120s/low 130s will maybe need 1 to 3 exposures to a new concept, and they like to learn, but they are maybe not the self-starters the group above is. However, they may take off on their own once you show them the way to go.

A child with an IQ of 110 to 115 is going to take 3 to 6 or 7 exposures to pick something up.

A child with an IQ of 100 to 110 is going to take 6 to 10 or more times to learn it.

And it keeps increasing as you travel on down.

What it means is that while theoretically, a child with an IQ of 85 could learn the same things as someone up in the 150 range, they are going to have to be super-dedicated, and it's going to take them a *ton* of time and lots of exposure to concepts, over and over and over again to get there. Most aren't going to bother because it's a heavy struggle to pick up the basics.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

This sort of situation is identical to the people who are demanding that we strip all honour & attributed genius, honourable actions from anyone at all who may have been a product of their times/ environment & so on. A great example is when astronaut Scott Kelly was harangued on Twitter for having made a positive reference towards the honourable actions of Winston Churchill, former prime minister of the UK during World War 2. This guy was an incredible leader with a fearsom intellect, which he used to help win WW2 & defend Britain during the war. He kept the UK trained on achieving the objective, and the necessity of sterngth of moral purpose & mental focus from the British people as they faced down the Nazis entirely alone during the early years of WW2 & especially during the Blitz, where somehow Londoners & other parts of the UK simply had to retain such strength & clarity of vision in order to survive both physically & in spirit.

As it happens, Churchill was also a product of his times & held some views which may, at first glance, seem terribly racist. He intimated that the uncivilised & anarchic, barbaric persons of certain overseas territories which the British conquered in their empire building days, basically had to be ruled with an iron fist, and kept in line so they didn't revolt and damage the cause of the British (for example, they were a threat against the structured merchant activity being operated by the British) You can look at this & call it racist, or you can look at it another way - Britain was developing certain functional assets in those countries. Many local people were eventually raised out of poverty, and many governments were formed based on the pattern & personal examples of the British leaders. Without the empire-sponsored activity, these countries would almost certainly have remained as uncivilised, anarchic backwaters. Yes, there was a measure of exploitation involved at the outset - every nation has at some time been involved in empire building - but without the intervention & eventual political support from Britain, these countries would have nothing like the political & economic status they currently enjoy, even if they are still lagging behind first world nations at this time. Given a little more experience, they will be likely to develop even further, if they can stop the revolt of the anarchic former warlords & gangs which otherwise would see the ruin of the nation in order to steal a few trinkets. Corruption by natives has also been the number one factor preventing the full development of many of these nations, and so Churchill's comments were not only a product of his times - they were also accurate.

And yet Scott Kelly took the coward's route & agreed to apologise for his reference to the admirable qualities of Churchill - instead he lambasted Churchill:


"Did not mean to offend by quoting Churchill. My apologies. I will go and educate myself further on his atrocities, racist views which I do not support. My point was we need to come together as one nation. We are all Americans. That should transcend partisan politics."


What a oathetic response. Why on Earth would anyone with any moral fibre back down on celebrating a legend of the Allied response to the genocide & other atrocities committed by actual fascists? Utterly pathetic. We should look on this story as a touchstone example for modern times, regarding the dreadful risks these days of historical revisionism in the interest of genuinely partisan, Marxist behaviour & usurping of the modern political & social/ cultural establishment of the Western world. Truly an abomination.

My Grandad was a fantastic, hard working & genuinely charitable, faithful Christian man who worked in the UK merchant navy in the years right after WW2 (he missed seeing action due to his age, he turned 16 in 1946). I & many others loved him dearly, and I would defend him to the death from anyone who wanted to trrash his memory. Yet he also inherited some racist views from his elders - views which surprised me somewhat when I first heard him pass comment in a certain way. But it was such a minimal part of who he was as a person, that it can literally be excused as an example of the inherent flaws of humanity, something casually adopted due to the overwhelming beliefs, words & actions of those around him. He certainly never disrespected or criticised anyone in person, but had some inaccurate views of the cultural traits of certain people which were 'casually racist' in the terms it seems to fit. He was still an amazing man who left a phenomenal legacy for those who came afterwards.



edit on JanuarySunday1901CST12America/Chicago-060046 by FlyInTheOintment because: spelling



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
IQ has nothing to do with work ethics, IQ has nothing to do with integrity, IQ has little to do with values, IQ doesn't equate to how much tenacity a person will have in their achievements either ... So on and so on...

IQ that we put so much emphasis on has more to do with how long it takes a person to understand a concept and to what level that understanding can be reached. That is it...end of story.

About 90%+ of jobs out there need an IQ well below 120 and most can be done extremely well with an IQ below 100 for the basic ability to do the job, now whether you do the job well or you are a great performer is all the other things I mentioned above. So if Watson thinks blacks are poor workers based on low IQ then he is not as smart as he thinks.






edit on 13-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I believe IQ has more of a relation to genetics vs nutririon/environment. I was born with Marfans syndrome which is a connective tissue disorder. I've been legally blind since born & couldn't see well until I got contact lenses in 3rd grade. I have eaten mainly cheap fast food my whole life. I missed half of 6th & half of 7th grades due to two 12 hour back surgeries to correct scoliosis, which put me behind in math in middle & high school. I was good at Geometry in high school but terrible at Algebra. My parents also got divorced when I was 3 years old. I consider myself a white male. I'm parts German, Polish, British and Chinese. I have an IQ of @ 125. Maybe I'm an exception but I doubt it. People with lower IQ also have more children vs people with higher IQ. So the majority of people have a lower IQ.
edit on 13-1-2019 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Unruhestifter

When I saw this story earlier I knew if I came to ATS there would be plenty of conservatives defending the remarks of a racist senile old man.

You never disappoint ATS.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

The data doesn't lie. On average, people in Africa do test lower. That doesn't mean there are not very, very intelligent people there. It just means that on average, you find far fewer of them than you do in other areas.

Incidentally, the data also shows that you find a higher concentration of smarter people in places like China and Japan, too.

The thing about IQ batteries is that they are not put together to test knowledge concepts. No one is asking you what the world's longest rivers are. They're asking you more non-verbal reasoning skills, things like that, that you can reason out without having much in the way of formal education because often IQ tests are administered to younger children in the early elementary years.

The question should be why the data tells us this, not to attack the data as racist. Why does this happen? If we could find the answer, then perhaps we could alleviate some of the issues in the world. But you can't answer a question that dare not be posed because it's politically incorrect because people fear what the answer *might* be.
edit on 13-1-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It doesn't even matter what the old codger believes about IQ. The fact is he discovered DNA. To deny that is to teach lies.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Unruhestifter

When I saw this story earlier I knew if I came to ATS there would be plenty of conservatives defending the remarks of a racist senile old man.

You never disappoint ATS.


Then maybe you liberals should debate the science rather than attack a senile old man.

The guys done more for humanity than likely anyone on ats ever has done or ever will.

Yes his comment on black workers was racist.
But as you said he is old and likely senile.
Stripping him of honours and titles seems pointlessly cruel and just empty liberal virtue signing at the expense of a senile old man brought up in a different time.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
It doesn't even matter what the old codger believes about IQ. The fact is he discovered DNA. To deny that is to teach lies.


Liberals hate genetics.

For one thing it means only two genders



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Unruhestifter


Probably in Africa if you gave a guy walking out of the Bush an IQ test, alongside a guy from the UK the same test. Guess who would do better. But if you told them both to live in the African bush for a week, again guess who would do better. Its all Apples and Oranges.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
yes - watson is a racist - and actions should have consequences

BUT

once again - selective bias is being applied

black figures make al kinds of racist comments - and crickets ......................

white man makes racist remark , fooking pandemonium ...........................

So do numerous individuals of other races.

You are right, the double standards are very frustrating.

I’ve had a few people of color say race based disrespectful comments to me in the workplace, which if a white person said them would be fired or other consequences.
edit on 13-1-2019 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Unruhestifter


Probably in Africa if you gave a guy walking out of the Bush an IQ test, alongside a guy from the UK the same test. Guess who would do better. But if you told them both to live in the African bush for a week, again guess who would do better. Its all Apples and Oranges.


The same base reasoning skills apply. The knowledge base is what differs.

It might be that Africa is poorer in intellectual talent because it's best and brightest have been steadily poached for hundreds of years by other cultures of all races, and recently, the smartest leave Africa for better circumstances because they can.

Brain drain.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Not speaking to race and IQ, but as far as intelligence when it comes to complex ethical situations, where basic taught morals aren’t sufficient by themselves, I see lots of people unable to transpose ethics and values to unique new situations. So I think your view that intelligence has nothing to with integrity and ethics is not true.
a reply to: Xtrozero


edit on 13-1-2019 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: Unruhestifter

Well .. ain´t his comments based by his research and observation ? When results speak for themselves, do we deny ? Isn´t his comments just a result of his observations as a scientist? He should not be stripped of honors when he has data to back up his comments.

His comments on black employees isn’t a scientific observation, and it’s not phrased in that way either.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: Unruhestifter

luckily he sold his nobelprice to an russian oligarch..


He's clearly a Russian agent besides being a racist. Just like Trump.



Why.... won’t.... Trump disavow him?!?! -CNN et al, 2019



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I'm from Detroit he's just saying what most of us already know. I'm not going any further with what I think because it will be deemed racist.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: wantsome
I'm from Detroit he's just saying what most of us already know. I'm not going any further with what I think because it will be deemed racist.


Part of Detroit's problem is a broken school system.

We long ago stopped teaching reading through phonics. It was deemed too hard, but it is a systematic approach that actually does work by treating language like code - each letter has a sound and the different letters in words still have their own sounds that break down and then go together to make words.

The sight word approach demands that students memorize the entire language.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: dollukka

For every study that makes that claim there are 6 that will blame the current education system. But here's the truth there has not been a gene found that directly links to intelligence. But there has been some studies done on adopted children. And environment is the biggest factor to higher scores. For example taking a black child and placing them with white parents they will have a much higher score.

So the real issue becomes socio economic. The more money you have the better your education

That’s generally true, but there is evidence for genetic components.

For ex, with twins separated in different conditions, having similar iqs.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: wantsome
I'm from Detroit he's just saying what most of us already know. I'm not going any further with what I think because it will be deemed racist.


Part of Detroit's problem is a broken school system.

We long ago stopped teaching reading through phonics. It was deemed too hard, but it is a systematic approach that actually does work by treating language like code - each letter has a sound and the different letters in words still have their own sounds that break down and then go together to make words.

The sight word approach demands that students memorize the entire language.
Part of Detroit's problem is they expect the school system to raise their kids. Then their little monsters grow up to terrorize everyone around them until they get locked up.







 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join