Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 02:17 AM by ElectricUniverse

This is nothing more than an attempt by someone to claim black people are less intelligent, which sorry to say is BS.

Now-a-days you can influence, and rig any data to support whatever crazy theory you have in mind, which is exactly what this man did.

I have met people from all over the world, including black friends from Zimbawe, with college degrees who are more intelligent than a lot of white people, latinos, or Asians I have met, and the same goes for all races.

Everyone, of any race is able to be as intelligent, or more intelligent than most regular people of other races.

This is nothing more than desguised racism from a man trying to use rigged science as a culprit.

In turn claims like this one will be seen by other racists out there as a justifiable action to continue to support their racist idealism.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 02:21 AM by nh_ee

This originally was the intent of the Tuskegee airmen experiment, and that in actuality was intended to prove that "Negro" minds were incapable of piloting combat aircraft.
We now know the result of the experiment, for they not only earned their wings, but became one of the most highly decorated fighter squadrons in WWII, by never losing a single US bomber to enemy fighters throughout the entire war.

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 02:30 AM by Exuberant1

Originally posted by nh_ee
but became one of the most highly decorated fighter squadrons in WWII, by never losing a single US bomber to enemy fighters throughout the entire war.

Yup..

Check out the combat record of the 761st Tank Battalion, the 'black panthers'.
(most of which have Irish names ;-)

In recent years, some African-Americans have moved to embrace their Irish heritage, even though that lineage remains a subject of unease to many.
Barrack Obama is from Moneygall.

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 04:11 AM by LiquidLight

it may be cultural, it may be that IQ tests are biased towards those with a western education, but I don't think any of that matters... People are individuals, and individuals can deviate from the statistical mean. The question that really matters, in my opinion, is why people get outraged by others suggesting that people of different races may be more or less (on average) intelligent than others, but not when they suggest that one race may be more athletic than another. Both are equally important evolutionary traits, why hold one trait as more important than others? If Blacks have a lower average IQ than whites, or Asians have a higher average IQ, where is the importance? You can cite scientific studies until the cows come home, but the only thing that matters is that we're all human, and we're all capable of great things.

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 05:54 AM by Skittle

Same with black birds, black cats and black ants? The good news is that this eugenicist is dying soon

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 07:32 AM by cheeser

-The reason why blacks are "physically superior" then whites is to do with their smaller brains.

-Bigger brains, giving rise to more brain power has its obvious advantage, but it also has many disadvantages. Brain tissue needs a lot of supplies, much more than most parts of the body. Bigger brain means bigger head, with a bigger head the females pelvis needs to be larger (this is a carry over trait that also causes male pelvises to be larger) to give birth to the baby. Simple mechanics will tell you that legs closer together will be more efficient than further apart, which is what larger pelvises cause.

Why do people acknowledge difference races have different PHYSICAL attributes but not different mental abilities?

If you believe in evolution you can not refute this. If a human group lives in a harsher environment and natural selection favour intelligence, it will increase dramtically more than in other regions.

[edit on 15/3/09 by cheeser]

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 07:53 AM by bharata

I think that my link will add some insight into why black people are seen as less intelligent but also why that will change. Its about perception and bias.

A brighter future

America and the world may be going through an "economic reboot" to use a phrase from the link. A leveling across all races and cultures. This may lead to some races and or cultures exceeding the stereotyped view of themselves.

This could be seen as alarmist if you are of a biased view but if? you are intelligent then you see that its what happens to all natural systems sooner or later, the system will try and correct the imbalance because it is not sustainable.

Could you say that black people are now more spiritually intelligent than white people? going by the poll in the video they are generlly more optimistic even in these hard times so I ask who will benifit more in the long run? Of course the ones with the better outlook. Now everything could, change is good, but people don't like change. Please read the following.

Facts do not accumulate on the blank slates of researchers' minds and data simply do not speak for themselves.1 Good science inevitably embodies a tension between the empiricism of concrete data and the rationalism of deeply held convictions. Unbiased interpretation of data is as important as performing rigorous experiments. This evaluative process is never totally objective or completely independent of scientists' convictions or theoretical apparatus. This article elaborates on an insight of Vandenbroucke, who noted that "facts and theories remain inextricably linked... At the cutting edge of scientific progress, where new ideas develop, we will never escape subjectivity."2 Interpretation can produce sound judgments or systematic error. Only hindsight will enable us to tell which has occurred. Nevertheless, awareness of the systematic errors that can occur in evaluative processes may facilitate the self regulating forces of science and help produce reliable knowledge sooner rather than later.

Link to source

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 08:18 AM by bharata

I found another article on said scientist here

To quote from the article...

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

So where is the evidence? None as yet, watch this space ( I wont hold my breath).

The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".

the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

"To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual

"This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

So he is a genetic scientist a pioneer in the field but seems to have been left behind and held back by his personal bias. I think we need to study his genitics and find the racist gene.

The human species may be varied on the outside, but inside, at the genetic level, we're all the same. Race is a social affliction that the best of us seems to find a difficult hurdle to get over. There is more evidence that race is a byproduct of our environment, not our genes. Our environment determines how our genes express themselves --

Source here

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 08:46 AM by NightSkyeB4Dawn

Since there is no Black race it is interesting at how Herr Doctor came to this conclusion.

Almost all Americans considered Black are interracial. They are a mixture of races on different levels for each and every one of them.

I guess that you could call them members of a collective race so it would seem that they would carry the best and the worst of all the races that they genetically comprise.

If we follow the same model as animals then most people agree that the mutt is usually the smartest in the pack.

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 08:51 AM by ae0nflux

reply to post by bharata

You're very insightful

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 09:13 AM by Grumble

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual

That this is found to be inappropriate or politically incorrect by the establishment is extremely humorous. Because OF COURSE the woman should be allowed to abort the child for any reason, because that is her RIGHT. But if she aborts it because it will be homosexual, then THAT IS EUGENICS! Besides, we all know homosexuals are our special friends, and we take special care of them!

I am a socially liberal, generally pro-choice person, by the way, but I freaking hate hypocrisy. Political correctness is a scourge upon the collective intelligence of the West. That supposed scientists would reject ideas because they are "wrong" shows a lack of scientific integrity which discredits every assertion they make.

So, my esteemed scientific colleagues, I ask you this. Is the skin color of one race different than the others? Are other physical structures of one race different than the others? Given the many, obvious physical differences between races, do you propose that the brains of the different races have evolved to be somehow "equal" despite the enormous differences which no doubt exist? Exactly how would you support this notion, scientifically?

Again, this LIBERAL person would simply like to see a world without bull#. I know it is not going to happen, but to witness the regurgitation of political brainwashing on this site is nauseating. So if I have offended you, your race, or your sensibilities, then GOOD.

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 09:13 AM by Grumble

So there.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Grumble]

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 01:03 PM by X-tal_Phusion

First, I'm going to share a reference I found on this subject: books.google.com... uw3kSepuE#PPA180,M1

Now, I'm going to tell you what I think. This discussion seems to center around the subject of IQ scores which, in itself, remains a controversial subject. Most attribute IQ score to academic/intellectual potential. However, even the highest-scoring test-takers encounter pitfalls of their own and I believe there is a limit beyond which IQ fails to serve as a predictor of future success. Despite the fact that this discussion seems to center around the average IQ of certain groups of people, we must consider the consequences associated with obtaining IQ scores at both tail ends of the Bell Curve.

I therefore contend, that despite differences in average IQ between certain sub-populations (roughly delineated by ethnic background), the percentage of individuals whose IQ falls within the optimal range (for the test to accurately predict future academic success) is, more likely than not (after correcting for the Flynn effect), the SAME. Isn't the predictive power of IQ what truly matters here?

Averages encompass the entire range of scores-- including those that are no longer useful in any practical sense. For those who are not familiar with the story of William Sidis, it depicts the consequences associated with having an exceedingly high IQ. The bottom line is this, when it comes to IQ, higher isn't always better. Anything in excess comes at a cost.

Most of us want to be inclusive-- we want everyone to have the same opportunities in life. To say otherwise is frowned upon but diversity is not necessarily a bad thing. We are not the same and I believe it's time we learned to celebrate our differences.

reply posted on 15-3-2009 @ 04:26 PM by bharata

reply to post by Grumble

Read the following regarding the study of brain size ( A study conducted by a scientist called Bean).

He did measure brain size and cranial capacity of blacks and whites, but failed to find any significant differences in his measurements. Bean introduced other factors - sex and social class - to account for his failure to find a difference in brain size.

Source

And like the people I refer to as biased and ill informed, they will continue to flog a dead horse.

Bean's mentor, Franklin P. Mall, who had initially encouraged the study, thought the data were too good, and became suspicious. He therefore made his own comparisons of brains from blacks and whites, and failed to find any difference, even though he performed the same measurements as Bean, and his sample contained 18 brains - 8 from blacks and 10 from whites - used by Bean himself. Of those 18 specimens, Beans measurements of the genu were larger than Moll's for 7 out of 10 of the brains from whites, but for only 1 out of 8 of the brains from blacks.

Source

And last bit not least.

Race and intelligence have in some cases been claimed to be correlated. Contemporary debate on this issue focuses on the nature, causes, and rectifications of ethnic differences in intelligence test scores. The question of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability is seen as fundamental to understanding the debate.[1] This is controversial [2][3][4] because theories and hypotheses on racial differences in intelligence are based on correlations in test score and socio-economic achievement differences and not on genetic or neural evidence, [5] and correlation does not prove causation. Genome projects and other biological studies have found no genetic differences which cause differences in intelligence capacity or differences in neural wiring between humans based on race.

Source

Yawn...so where was I...ah yes nausated from the bordome of repetitive dialog.

It is good to ask questions, awkward ones and taboo ones. It is interesting. It is also interesting to see the reaction it ignites. If your reaction is strong to this subject then ask yourself....why?.

reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 11:25 AM by WatchRider

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This isn't really a new idea. In fact in the past most scientists thought this was true.

I don't think it has any relevance, look at all the great things black people have done. Whether they score lower on IQ tests or not, hasn't inhibited their abilities. I think this may be due to environment and stuff like that.

I think the white / black divide is to do with racial traits and the fact that academia, pre-1900 was the forte of the white caucasions. So this could be the reason for higher IQs on the white side of the fence.
On the other hand hunting and warrior prowess in close-quarter fighting has, historically, been the forte of the black peoples.

Now, in modern times it's interesting to wonder on what the racial divide will mean now that things are on a more equal footing.
It is a proven fact that Black african folk have stronger bones / density to them. Giving them an edge in athletics and fighting sports such as boxing.

When I worked in the construction industry, the bigger black guys tended to be the stronger and more hard-working through 'bursts' of energy.
But the slenderer built black folks would pace themselves more and certainly seemed 'more' intelligent.

I would argue that a higher IQ score doesn't not necessarily mean a person is as 'clever' as someone with a lesser IQ score.

reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 02:35 PM by Retseh

I think you're all missing the point, this isn't about black or white, red or yellow, it's about scientific integrity.

This aged, and somewhat ill-advised professor, made the mistake of revealing a scientific conclusion based on empirical data, something that scientists do every day. But he arrived at a socially unacceptable conclusion on a taboo subject.

Every criticism levelled against him focused on the racial aspect of his statement, and not on his scientific process or the validity of his data.

When science has to pick and choose what it can research, we are back in the days when religious zealots burned people for daring to disagree with the Bible.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Retseh]

reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 04:28 PM by Spiramirabilis

I understand what you're saying - I really do

and I agree with you

but if we're honestly concerned about scientific integrity - I don't think that's what we're looking at here

Originally posted by Retseh

...But he arrived at a socially unacceptable conclusion on a taboo subject...

Every criticism levelled against him focused on the racial aspect of his statement, and not on his scientific process or the validity of his data.

from the article referenced in the OP: www.timesonline.co.uk...

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

it will be data - when he finds it - maybe within the next decade

until then it's his opinion

He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.

which automatically allows for the possibility that the exact opposite is true

he's basing everything on what he's already anticipated

Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

someone should explain to Doctor Watson that his wishes aren't any more magical than any other wish

reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 04:47 PM by Retseh

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I know we agree on the point of unrestricted scientific research, but I remember this story when it originally broke, and the empirical evidence I referred to was his library of IQ test results which he referred to in the first article published on what he said:

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk...

[EX]He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really” [/EX]

The "wait and see" part is really waiting for genetic/social evolution to prove out his hypothesis.

But back to my main point, if scientific testing proves that I am genetically inferior to Asian people in terms of basic intelligence, I would be eager to understand why that genetic difference exists, and not spend my time calling the researcher a racist.

To paraphrase Einstein - Science has no limits, only human stupidity.

reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 05:32 PM by Spiramirabilis

reply to post by Retseh

:-)

then we don't need to bother agreeing to disagree - we can just go ahead and agree and not agree - both - at the same time

The "wait and see" part is really waiting for genetic/social evolution to prove out his hypothesis

I am obviously more concerned with what Dr. Watson implies than with what he knows - except for the fact that he doesn't tell us what he knows - he only implies

meaning - he says what he says for a reason

from the link you just gave to a different article (which I did read the other day):

His comments, however, although seemingly unguarded, are always calculated. Not maliciously, but with the mischievous air of a great mind hoping to be challenged. I ask him how he placates those he offends. “I try to use humour or whatever I can to indicate that I understand other people having other views,” he explains.

I don't know this guy - so I can't know what his personal beliefs - or motives - really are. Even if I did know him - very well - it's never wise to assume you understand someone completely - it's impossible

having said that - I would really like to believe that I do understand him - and that he's the kind of man that says controversial things only to provoke exactly the sort of discussion we're all having right now

and possibly even just to amuse himself

I've known people just like that - they have no concern for how they might appear to others - their objective has nothing to do with winning personal brownie points or being popular

Doctor Watson is a respected scientist - I'm not here to discredit him

I may not like what he's saying - but I would have to take it more seriously if he could back it up - with something

I'm no scientist - but even I am capable of recognizing the complete absence of science - which isn't in the 2nd article either

you're satisfied with the IQ tests - that's not going to do it for me - he's gone ahead and said he knows something that he hasn't actually proven yet - unless you consider the IQ tests to be enough

I think this entire thread shows how much some people are willing to accept and just run with - if it comes from an accepted and reputable source

considering the topic - if I'm honest - my problem is not with Dr. Watson

To paraphrase Einstein - Science has no limits, only human stupidity.

and to paraphrase you - Science is limited - by human stupidity

and scientists are human

:-)

reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 06:39 PM by NightSkyeB4Dawn

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I know we agree on the point of unrestricted scientific research, but I remember this story when it originally broke, and the empirical evidence I referred to was his library of IQ test results which he referred to in the first article published on what he said:

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk...

[EX]He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really” [/EX]

The "wait and see" part is really waiting for genetic/social evolution to prove out his hypothesis.

But back to my main point, if scientific testing proves that I am genetically inferior to Asian people in terms of basic intelligence, I would be eager to understand why that genetic difference exists, and not spend my time calling the researcher a racist.

To paraphrase Einstein - Science has no limits, only human stupidity.

To paraphrase Einstein - Science has no limits, only human stupidity.

Dictionary:

sci•ence n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

By its very definition it is limited and is fraught with speculation and restrictions based on the desired outcome of the one that is searching.

Science is not static and is ever changing just as our planet and we are changing.

I think you sell yourself short to accept someone else’s definition of you.

While there may indeed be people out there that may be more intelligent then you it does not mean every person will be smarter than you whether they are classified as Asian or any other group.

Studies of this kind prove nothing except maybe the mental and spiritual limitations of the person that is so short sighted that they can not see that the outcome of their study would be grossly different if they used a different set of parameters.

in•tel•li•gence ( n-t l -j ns) n.
1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.

Everyone learns differently and at a different pace. The results of a poorly or inadequately designed test does very little to determine the capacity of one to acquire and apply knowledge.

It only tells you how well the person performed on that particular test.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by NightSkyeB4Dawn]