Well, there's spatial intelligence, sure. Pattern recognition. I also think focus is a kind of intelligence, where you are able to concentrate on
something without being distracted by other stuff. There is the ability to intelligently take action when under stress, rather than simply freeze or
hide. There is intelligence when dealing with symbols, like you have with mathematics. But there's also social intelligence, which involves
recognizing what other people want and knowing how to respond to it. Sexual intelligence is in there, too, but it gets clouded by instinct. Some
people think empathy is a kind of social intelligence, too. Maybe ESP is in there. Verbal intelligence is also different than mathematical
intelligence. And then there's imagination, which Einstein himself said was more important than knowledge. And there are many more parameters that
have to do with us, as organisms, dealing with what we perceive to be reality.
And as someone who scored really high on those IQ tests in junior high and then went on to have social problems all my life to this day, I can tell
you that just being able to put a square peg in a square hole is not enough.
Yet he will go down in history as having achieved those honors. They can strip him of anything they want but its totally symbolic.
He still achieved and it was recognized and accepted by the PC snowflakes. They can't take it back. Its like tearing down all the statues the
snowflakes are afraid of. They can try to erase them but they are still a part of documented history.
Just to be clear about anything I'm saying below, especially towards the end, this statement by Watson is a falsehood, a myth/false story, an
unverified philosophy/idea with no conclusive evidence to back it up while the actual evidence shows otherwise, showing it to be a falsehood (if one
also considers some circumstantial evidence regarding human psychology and motivation for proposing such unfounded ideas, it helps with recognizing a
In the latest documentary, the molecular biologist says that genes cause a difference on average between black people and white people in
As quoted from the article linked in the OP (and focussing on the proposed cause; which is actually based on arguing from ignorance). Sadly not
highlighted in the OP. Because it has all the hallmarks of a falsehood, I've concluded it is one and therefore is more objectionable to me than the
other statements quoted in the OP. Allthough, since it also shows Watson's prime basis or motivation for saying such things as highlighted in the OP,
it raises some issues regarding those statements as well.
Racists believe “that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others,” says one
dictionary. Yet, as is noted in The World Book Encyclopedia, researchers “have not discovered any scientific basis for such claims of
When we get to know people on a personal level, we more readily see through misleading stereotypes.
How do you feel about people of a skin color or ethnic group different from your own? Do you view them as equals? Sadly, many view certain races as
inferior. “Racism,” according to one reference, is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial
differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
This belief has resulted in much harm. Feelings of racial superiority have “provided justification for colonial treatment and slavery of other
groups of people,” wrote Professor Wen-Shing Tseng in his Handbook of Cultural Psychiatry. He added that race has been used “to justify
social, economic, and political inequalities.” Even today, racism exists in many parts of the world. But is this hurtful belief based on truth?
What does science say?
Discoveries in genetics have confirmed the fallacy of racism. Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in
DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent. And 86 to 90 percent of those
differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between
Because “humans are genetically homogeneous,” says the journal Nature, “genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both
illuminate and defuse the race issue.” Such thinking is not new. Beginning in 1950 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) published a series of statements intended to combat racism. The statements were authored by anthropologists, geneticists, and
sociologists. In 1978 UNESCO stated that “all human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock.”—Declaration on
Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978. Yet, racism persists. Clearly, an awareness of the facts is not enough. The heart, or the inner person, must also
be reached. “Out of the heart come wicked reasonings,” said Jesus Christ.—Matthew 15:19, 20.
The facts in the fields of genetics and molecular biology (Watson's field) provide evidence for or point to the reality that:
“[God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.”—Acts 17:26.
During the 20th century, a number of groups adopted racist ideologies. The Nazis, for example, argued that there was a biological basis for beliefs
concerning racial superiority. On the other hand, the UNESCO document cited earlier recognized “the essential unity of the human race and
consequently the fundamental equality of all human beings and all peoples.”
Jesus set the standard for Christians when he said to his disciples: “All of you are brothers.” (Matthew 23:8)
In the form of inordinate self-esteem or haughtiness, pride can make a person more susceptible to prejudice. For example, pride can cause a person to
be prone to feelings of superiority or disdain toward the less educated or the materially poor. It may also make him inclined to believe propaganda
that elevates his national or ethnic group. Clever propagandists, such as Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, have deliberately nurtured national and racial
pride to rally the support of the masses and to malign those considered to be different or undesirable.
What does the Bible say? “[Do] nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind [consider] that the others are superior
to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Ask yourself: ‘Do I take secret delight in flattering comments about my own race or ethnic group or in disparaging
remarks about others?
Darwin's pseudoscience that Watson is so fond of promoting, doesn't make him more honest with himself or others. It certainly doesn't help on the
humility front (neither do those "honours" spoken of in the OP). No matter how intelligent he is. Con-artists come in all shapes and sizes, but they
are usually quite clever (or intelligent):
Stripping away any honours from the people above, including Watson, can only do good for these people and anyone affected by their evolutionary
pseudoscience (especially in terms of pride and humility). So I say, strip away, you should have never given them those honours in the first place,
you got scammed by people who have learned how to tell people what they want to hear, tickle their ears as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4:
3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to
their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They
will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [Greek: myʹthos; KJ: "myths"]
Nobel Prize-winning DNA scientist James Watson has been stripped of several honorary titles by the laboratory he once headed over his views
about intelligence and race.
I doubt he'll even lose any sleep over it, plenty of titles and admiration left. They're only good for marketing and self-marketing purposes anyway,
and he's already made his fortune with selling himself and his ideas as "science".
So what's the harm of being stripped of these ones? Strip away ("them" in my previous comment after I mentioned "strip away" is more referring to the
names mentioned in the preceding videos, I wasn't actually thinking about Watson there anymore as in the sentence before it). It can only do good on
the earlier described fronts (although I doubt it does much good there either). It's all a bit meaningless and insignificant, just like Watson
himself. Or Darwin for that matter if his influence on people's thinking didn't have such a harmful impact. So that's also one of the reasons I
shifted the focus or subject a bit.
edit on 19-1-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.