It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:17 AM
Try living in the ghetto

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:36 AM
First of all what is a black person ;are we talking about Sub Saharan Africans, Pacific Islanders, Indians etc. They all can fall under black. Was the person fully black.

What is a white person; are we talking about Europeans of Germanic descent, Europeans of Mediterranean descent etc.

What is a Arab considered.

The whole way that the racial system is structured either needs to be gone or completely redone cause it lacks alot. Ask your self this if we do by colours and Europeans aren't white I think a Japanese person would fit the visual aspect better.

This is a load of bs I can name people of 10 different races that would pose questioning to this guys findings.

Another thing is what are the findings based on.

(1) Are you asking a person about there own lands or another place around the globe something they may be familiar with or something unfamiliar with.

(2) Did these finds occur with people of all social and economic backgrounds

(3) Did you have enough of a sample group (over 1000) that are not related or live in the same environment.

(4) Did you have people of mixed race descent; based on the logic of the argument if there is any they should be equally split along intelligent and less intelligent.

(5) Lets say the observations was done did you get people from North West, North East, South East, South West, Central Africa and the same for every continent.

(6) Did you get people from rural areas as well as cities

(7) Who created the standards/test/whatever was used to determine intelligence if the test is based on one cultural or society it is biased

(8) Are there more than one version of the standards/test/whatever used to determine intelligence if so were all used.

(9) What was the mental, emotional and physical state of the people

(11) Was this done in local language or local dialectic.

(12) Was it just this dude and his associates getting the findings

Can a right answer be given to all those 12 question to prove it is not bias in some way.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:14 AM
I dont mean to derail this discussion, but I find it very interesting that Dr. Watson would make such a controversial statement right before he starts his book tour.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by jatsc

Well it certainly caused quite a stir at the time he was attributed with the comments.

The quotes attributed to him drew attention and criticism from press in several countries and was widely discussed on CNN, the BBC, several papers, peers and by civil rights advocates. The common perception was that of Watson claiming a link between race and intelligence with the BBC stating that "(Watson) claimed black people were less intelligent than white people". In his book, the origin of the final written quote, Watson does not directly mention race as a factor in his hypothesized divergence of intellect between geographically isolated populations.

On October 18, The Science Museum in London cancelled a talk that Watson was scheduled to give the following day, stating that they believed Watson's comments had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate." On the same day the Board of Trustees at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory suspended Watson's administrative responsibilities, stating that

this action follows the Board’s public statement yesterday disagreeing with the comments attributed to Dr. Watson in the October 14, 2007 edition of The Sunday Times U.K.

that they "vehemently disagree with...and are bewildered and saddened.

Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, a position inherited from Watson, said

I am deeply saddened by the events of the last the aftermath of a racist statement...that was both profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence.

Watson issued an apology, stating that he was "mortified" and "cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said." He also claimed to

understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have ... 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.

Clarifying his position further, Watson explained

I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we would like it to be. This is why genetics is so important.

For it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. ...Since 1978, when a pail of water was dumped over my Harvard friend E O Wilson for saying that genes influence human behaviour, the assault against human behavioural genetics by wishful thinking has remained vigorous.

But irrationality must soon recede ... science is not here to make us feel good. It is to answer questions in the service of knowledge and greater understanding. ...We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things.

The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.


posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by jatsc

Nature went on to say that the controversy and cancellations potentially could suppress scientific inquiry by geneticists who are studying the differences between different human population groups. Medical Hypotheses (not peer-reviewed) went further, saying that "The unjustified ill treatment meted out to Watson therefore requires setting the record straight about the current state of the evidence on intelligence, race, and genetics.", and summarised evidence that apparently supports his position, declaring "These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the “moralistic fallacy” that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires."

On the issue of obesity, Watson has also been quoted as saying

Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by MrAnonUK]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:28 AM
First, name me a First-World country in Africa.

Second, South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) are no longer predominately by white people. Has the standard of living remained the same, gone up, or gone down since this happened?

When you answer those questions, you can make up your own mind.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:31 AM
To the scientist: Duh?

I learned in ELEMENTARY school that a creature with a smaller brain will be less intelligent than a creature with a bigger brain. Blacks have smaller brain volume. Go down to your local morgue and ask for the brain matter of a black guy, then the brain matter of a white guy, and measure the volume. It's not like this is a secret or that I'm lying. It does not take a scientist to figure out that blacks will be less intelligent with less brain volume. It's just how things work. Pretty much all professors and scientists KNOW this. They just don't want to publicly state this, because of fear of losing their job and getting sued by the "PC crowd." And it's true, look at this Dr. Watson. He was brave enough to come out and say it, and look what happened to him.

It makes perfect sense with evolution, too. Which is why evolution is correct and religion is wrong. The more intelligent races (i.e. whites, asians) had to endure harsher, winter lands. Because of this, evolution mandated that they needed to evolve and become more intelligent to survive in those harsh lands. If they didn't involve and become more intelligent, they would die out. It's NATURAL SELECTION in a way. For instance, whites came from northern europe which was very cold. In winter lands, food is sparse, water is frozen, shelter is hard to come by. In order to survive, they HAD to become more intelligent. They had no choice or say in the matter. Evolution made them evolve. The weak and dumb died out in the cold winter lands, the strong and smart went on living each generation. The race as a whole became smarter and smarter.

Now compare that to blacks. They lived in a warm climate, with plenty of food and water. They DID NOT need to evolve to survive, they DID NOT need to become more intelligent. There was no pressure on them at all. This is simply put, why they have not evolved one bit in the last 500,000 years. They had NO NEED to. They had everything they needed to survive already.

It makes perfect sense.

With all this said, when you can finally accept the fact that we are not all equal (what sense does that make? Clearly we aren't all equal...) and you can accept the fact that some races are more intelligent, THEN and only THEN can you stark working on race relation problems. Just because blacks are less intelligent doesn't mean they are any less than us, they are just as deserving to be treated kindly and to enjoy the right to life.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Geneticist1945]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Geneticist1945]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by sir_chancealot

Still could that still not be attributed to the rise and fall of those financial sectors in recent times? I would be inclined to believe it is.

Still, it can be debated I guess whether that is indeed the case.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:45 AM
Wow this is old.
From 2007 no less.

It's been discussed here already in a few different threads, which you would find out with a simple search I am assuming.

Why is this back here again as if it's brand new?

- Lee

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:51 AM
World IQ distribution

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by Geneticist1945

That was without a doubt the dumbest post I have ever read on any site. Granted I never been to a KKK page or a white power idiot page. I expect to see something like that there, so I know now I am not missing anything.

Do you have any idea how harsh an enviroment Africa can be? You called it a warm enviroment. That place can reach more then 120 degrees F, with water being scarce in most places. If you are so evolved and smarter then they are then go to the Kalahari Desert for a week and see if you can survive.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:01 AM
i think different ethnicities emphasize on different points...for example blacks and native americans are more spiritual. from a white persons point of view they may be underachieving, but thats because they have different values. some people look at africa and say many africans still live in huts and all that, but native americans for example would today probably also live in a similar way, if they could.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by JebediahSpringfield]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
First, name me a First-World country in Africa.

Second, South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) are no longer predominately by white people. Has the standard of living remained the same, gone up, or gone down since this happened?

Gee we all know the whites who governed those lands were "civilized" is the way they were thing about their fellow man.

South Africa and Zimbabwe had been robbed of their personal resources for decades by what was an oppressive colonialist government. The native peoples of that land after being oppressed and kept from equal opportunities in education and healthcase damned straight couldnt get themselves to compete with their white counterparts. South africa and Zimbabwe as a whole was not overal a higher standard of living at that time, the white parts were, the white areas that had robbed the land of most of its resources instead of distributing it.

As far as I can see it, Africa and North america and the Aboriginals of Australia were well and fine in their own societies until the whites decided to come along and rape the land. Get your facts straight.

When you answer those questions, you can make up your own mind.

Why should we answer questions when you refuse to seek the clear answers yourself?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by gs001
World IQ distribution

what the hell is this? did you make this yourself? jeeze how extremely bias and inaccurate this map is. Yes yes yes lets compare little Johnny from a village in the congo where they lack proper schooling, health care or opportunity for work, where they have been robbed of equality for generations by the colonialists, where they have been war stricken and lets compare them to good ol southern boy fat kid Ben who has all the education, health insurance and attention a white child could ever recieve.

Really the ignorance is astounding in here. Deny ignorance.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Southern Guardian]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

This guy is 79year right? Well he sure as heck is an aging breed in his way of thinking

So, you think that aged persons are less intelligent than young ones, uH ???

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:57 AM
it is a climate and natural dangers which were the stimulating the intelectual progress for ages.

when the Cook came to Australia he discovered Aborigins who (living in a really perfect world with almost no natural dangers (no lion or so), on a big areas (no need to fight for food) and in good climate (no need to build shelters)) has lost around 45% of tools they came with originally from Asia.

it shows how it works. that is why the "north" people had to perform better and made a bigger progress. but I am prettty sure that within time that differences are disapearing and for example the co called "black" people living for example in EU or US for few generations are totally equal.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:12 AM
Regardless of what this guy has accomplished in the past he either has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this intelligence issue or he's just senile. As a candidate for a Masters degree in the field of adult education with a minor in social psychology I can tell you when I first began my college education in these areas I was astounded to learn how incredibly complex the issue of race and intelligence really are. And as others here have noted, the role of culture (a huge, complex topic all by itself) is a critically important element when attempting to measure intelligence. Then, of course, there is always the ongoing debate over just how such measuring should be done, not to mention the debate over just how to define "intelligence".

Notice, also, that he didn't bother to specify any specific "studies" when he attempted to justify his claim about the inferior intelligence of Blacks. He merely said (I'm paraphrasing) '...studies show...". Well, okay, what studies? I wouldn't be surprised if he just assumes he can fool people into thinking he knows what he's talking about just because of his past reputation as a "scientist". The guy needs to either put up or shut up. And his remark about "just ask any employer who deals with Blacks..." is ludicrous.

Basically, this guy is clearly out to lunch or simply enjoys stirring up controversy. Having read his past remarks about women I suspect the latter.

By the way, someone here mentioned "common sense". Even the notion of common sense turns out to be a culturally biased phenomenon. None of these issues are as black and white (no pun intended) as many people tend to think. There are huge gray areas compounded by countless and subtle variables that need to be accounted for in the field of sociology, social-psychology and social anthropology. In fact, maybe this guy needs to go back to school and start all over again with a 101-level course in one of social science disciplines before he causes any more trouble than he all ready has.

Okay, I'll get off my soap box now. Just had to vent.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

I find the picutre on google "iq world map"
political incorrect?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Geneticist1945

Do you have any idea how harsh an enviroment Africa can be? You called it a warm enviroment. That place can reach more then 120 degrees F, with water being scarce in most places. If you are so evolved and smarter then they are then go to the Kalahari Desert for a week and see if you can survive.

They don't live in the desert. They live in the parts of Africa that are temperate and tropical. That throws your point out the window.

Look at the worldwide IQ distribution map posted above. Do you notice how the further from the equator you get, the higher the IQ gets? It's because the further you get from the equator, the colder the lands become, and the harsher they are the harder it is for the humans to survive. (we are talking humans before the invention of the heater). Look at what races all live at the quator or around it. The brown and dark races, like blacks, arabs, "hispanics", etc. Or in other words the lesser intelligent races. The more intelligent races live further from the equator, like the whites (europeans), asians, etc.

It's simple evolution. Evolution dictates that an organism must adapt to it's environment to survive. We can all agree that the cold winter lands with little food, little shelter, little water, frostbite, and all the other problems that come with a cold abyss are much harder to live in than an area that is warm and plentiful with food and shelter. So the organisms that live in the cold lands had to adapt to their environment to survive - they had to become more intelligent and find ways around those problems listed above.

The effects of that evolution can be seen today in what we call average IQ.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Geneticist1945]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:15 AM
I immediately thought of breeds of snakes.
Some older world snakes like a boa or a python have different instincts then a new world snake like a corn snake.
They are different breeds from different continents and both have different ways of thinking.
I make the observation that they are not more or less intelligent then the other so much as they have just adapted to their environment as a way to survive.
Its instinct.
My 2 cents.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in