DNA pioneer says black people less intelligent than whites (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

I tried to read said article; turns out only abstract and refs are available online.

true story.

 

[sam04u]

It's not available online, but if you read what I did it's not purely based on empirical data, but it's also based on theory, and assumptions made by the contributors.

 

[Graney]

I think you don't know what peer reviewed means.

 

[sam04u]

I think you don't know what peer reviewed means.

Well considering that you quoted Leon J. Kamin, a psychologist well known for criticising flawed ideologies like Heritability of IQ, and rather supporting environmental factors which effect intelligence. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about either. You haven't even read the journal in question, neither do you know who reviewed the journal. But from the title of the journal alone "South African Journal of Psychology", you can see that their might be a little bias. Bare in mind that South Africa was an apartheid country, untill quite recently.

Kamin is known in some circles for his position that the heritability of IQ could be zero.

Infact Kamin has criticised (effectively) Lynn, Vanhanen and Jensen. Pretty much all of the psychologists quoted in that extract.

 

[Graney]

Did you get everything you posted from wikipedia?
Quit pretending you're a psych student.

neither do you know who reviewed the journal.

Fail. Reviewers are anonymous.

Published articles and journals must meet standards. Wtf are you talking about, bias? Are you even a science student?

There is no source of greater credibility than journal articles. If we can't accept theories published in modern journals as having a reasonable scientific basis worthy of debate, we have no science.

I'm not arguing the view is right or wrong. But, as it's published in modern journal articles, Dr. Watson should be able to raise and debate the point.

From a cursory viewing, Richard Lynn and friends has published articles, mostly focusing on racial and sexual differences in IQ, in such awesome journals as European Journal of Personality, Journal of Biosocial Science, Nature, Mankind Quarterly, British Journal of Psychology etc... He's a prolific, respected and controversial academic.

 

[katie_tully]

I only read the first page, but I am pretty sure I know where this thread has ended up.

Dr Watson, one of the greatest pioneers in science is a racist for stating what was probably intended to be neutral comment on the results of numerous studies.

 

[volition]

Just felt like throwing in something I read somewhere, it seems to make sense to me:
All people deserve equal treatment. But that is not the same as saying they are all equal. The error comes in taking a group difference, which may or may not be real, and using it to judge the worth of individuals.

 

[pattii]

off topic: your hsc was in 1998 and you joined bos in 2005 k

on topic: I don't doubt that their experiments/theories are invalid. Nor am i being a racist and agreeing with them.
But i'd like to know if they tested 'black' people from all social classes, as access to education or whatever can be a crucial factor to their conclusion..

 

[Captain Gh3y]

poor people are less intelligent than rich

 

[banco55]

Just felt like throwing in something I read somewhere, it seems to make sense to me:
All people deserve equal treatment. But that is not the same as saying they are all equal. The error comes in taking a group difference, which may or may not be real, and using it to judge the worth of individuals.

The gap is across the entire social strata.

 

[Serius]

The gap is across the entire social strata.

What he said. Even though social-ecconomic has an influence, it doesnt totally account for the difference in IQ between blacks and whites. One study i read said the biological factor was responsible for about 7% of the gap, so obviously money, social status, nutrition, health etc made up the other 93%

 

[volition]

The gap is across the entire social strata.

Did you mean to quote me or pattii? Because I'm the one accepting that there may be differences... not doubting them.

Anyway, even if it is true it doesn't really change the way we should treat other people. We're still all equal as humans.

 

[Enteebee]

What he said. Even though social-ecconomic has an influence, it doesnt totally account for the difference in IQ between blacks and whites. One study i read said the biological factor was responsible for about 7% of the gap, so obviously money, social status, nutrition, health etc made up the other 93%

So what they're saying is... they feel biological factors might make up for 7% of a (let's say 10%) gap (0.7% total here) difference in IQ, which while perhaps a decent measure of intelligence is undoubtably not THAT accurate...

I don't know why I'd even care about this result... Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

 

[MaNiElla]

Anyway, even if it is true it doesn't really change the way we should treat other people.

Yep, I totally agree with that.

 

[_dhj_]

Did you mean to quote me or pattii? Because I'm the one accepting that there may be differences... not doubting them.

Anyway, even if it is true it doesn't really change the way we should treat other people. We're still all equal as humans.

What do you mean by 'we're still all equal as humans'? You said that we're not equal in the sense that we're born with differing capabilities, but we should nevertheless be treated equally. 1) You can't enforce equal opportunity and treatment without statutory or constitutional mechanisms, without the existence of a government. 2) The result of combining unequal capabilities with legal equality is substantive inequality. What matters in the end seems is the outcome, and in terms of the outcome there has never been and there never will be equality.

 

[volition]

dhj: When I say it doesn't change our equality I mean to say: even if group differences are real, this tells us nothing about individuals.

The market doesn't need anti-discrimination laws, rational discrimination on the part of employers will ensure that bigoted employers pay for their bigotry. Rational employers value green more than they value white, black or yellow.

IF it so happens that certain races are better at certain things, then whats the problem with them representing a higher % of that occupation? If they're better at the job, then that's not wrong.

 

[Serius]

So what they're saying is... they feel biological factors might make up for 7% of a (let's say 10%) gap (0.7% total here) difference in IQ, which while perhaps a decent measure of intelligence is undoubtably not THAT accurate...

I don't know why I'd even care about this result... Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

Yeah i agree, its not huge. Its not something to stop the presses on, we have known there is an IQ gap of about 30 points of years. Previous studies showed that much of that gap was due to health, social problems etc. They found good evidence to suggest theres genetic reasons behind some of this gap. The number doesnt have to be huge to be valid the fact that it exists at all is reason enough to begin debating if humans are inherently equal in intelligence or not.

Dr Watson had this to say before he resigned:

"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," he is quoted as saying. "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."

 

[banco55]

dhj: When I say it doesn't change our equality I mean to say: even if group differences are real, this tells us nothing about individuals.

The market doesn't need anti-discrimination laws, rational discrimination on the part of employers will ensure that bigoted employers pay for their bigotry. Rational employers value green more than they value white, black or yellow.

IF it so happens that certain races are better at certain things, then whats the problem with them representing a higher % of that occupation? If they're better at the job, then that's not wrong.

It might not be wrong but it has big social implications. Doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, newspaper editors etc. have a lot more influence on society then say security guards, bricklayers and other jobs that require minimal intelligence.