James Watson, Race & Intelligence

[August1991]

What kind of education? It seems to me that education has not eliminated religious fanaticism. For example, the doctors who tried to murder people at that Scottish airport, or the many other university educated Islamists involved in various brutal bombings to advocate a medieval interpretation of Islam. They might be educated but they still think women are second class citizens and should keep their faces covered, gays should be killed, and thieves should have their hands cut off.

The education should be the ability to think independently.

But here's a thought, Argus. If a person can accept that a woman is free to choose her husband or accept that two men can touch each other in the same bed, then I guess the person is independent. The best test of Western Values is what American Liberals believe.

I don't want to turn this into another discussion of Islam. But I would like to point out that even educated people, particularly those from third world cultures, have expressed some amazingly barbaric, primitive, and brutal beliefs which are much more in keeping with the way they were raised than in anything they picked up at college. Examine, for example, the Shining Path, a particularly brutal, murderous group founded by a former university philosophy professor and grew, not among ignorant peasants, but among university students and young teachers. Abimael Guzman was an educated man, as were his senior followers, but that education did nothing to restrain their barbarism, and certainly did make them "like us". And I put it to you that no similar group would arise in Canada because our culture would not tolerate that level of brutality and insanity. A man like Guzman would be mocked and ridiculed, not pick up followers.

Our genetic differences are minor compared to our differences in education.

The world has too many people and we don't need more. We don't suffer from a low birth rate. In Quebec and Canada, we don't lack children, we lack educated children.

The "education" as panacea mantra is one so ingrained that it has become a truism. Almost all revolutionary leaders are "educated," and most of the leaders of barbaric countries are educated [insert snide response from the self-hating left here]. In fact, I'd say there are so many holes and exception to the rule that education has very little effect at all as an equalizer.

There's education, and then education.

Scott, I think that you'll agree that most of us alive today are different from our ancestors alive 50,000 years ago. The difference? It's not genetic. It's education.

Edited November 16, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

Scott, I think that you'll agree that most of us alive today are different from our ancestors alive 50,000 years ago. The difference? It's not genetic. It's education.

There are about thirty definitions you have to tack on to that statement, starting with "different" and "education." Being indoctrinated in shamanistic hogswaddle for years and being indoctrinated in the doctrines of "women's studies" or Koranic verse for years are no so very different. If you mean we are different by virtue of compiled knowledge and a shift toward scientific and philosophical inquiry, then sure, we're different in our actions, if not our thoughts. But I would suggest to you that we are moments away, at any given time, from reversion to the barbaric. Having said that, neither of us know the degree to which genetics has changed us.

[DogOnPorch]

Scott, I think that you'll agree that most of us alive today are different from our ancestors alive 50,000 years ago. The difference? It's not genetic. It's education.

Don't forget your high-school science classes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype-phenotype_distinction

--------------------------------------------------

Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

---Dr David Suzuki

[JerrySeinfeld]

Setting aside all that we've been indoctrinated and making simple observations, groups of people are different. Not better, not worse. Different.

Even the hard core leftist political correcties admit this. Not explicity, but they do when they make durogatory comments about "white males" or "americans".

Just yesterday i was booking a trip and a travel agent said "it's a good idea to go to cuba in the near term, because when castro dies there will be a new government and americans will be travelling there - so it's a good time to go before there are americans there."

Huh? Imagine if someone said that, but substituted "black people" for "americans".

I remember once an NFL oddsmaker they called "Jimmy the Greek" was fired from a major network for stating that black athletes have succeeded as a group because the slave trade brought over to american the most physically elite of the africans.

This is a perfect example of pure and simple truth being silenced in the name of public brainwashing.

Why are people so afraid of the truth? Isn't truth a good thing?

This nobel laureate fellow may have some interesting points. Science is about truth, and shouldn't be clouded by politics.

That said, the truth about groups also always has exceptions. When it comes to jobs or promotinos, it has to be evaluated on an individual basis.

[August1991]

Setting aside all that we've been indoctrinated and making simple observations, groups of people are different. Not better, not worse. Different.

Of course we're different, and we all discriminate too. We certainly discriminate in the choice of a spouse or parent for our children.

I have never liked the common use of the word "discrimination" for that reason. Is discrimination wrong? Is it wrong to discriminate in the choice of a spouse?

I remember once an NFL oddsmaker they called "Jimmy the Greek" was fired from a major network for stating that black athletes have succeeded as a group because the slave trade brought over to american the most physically elite of the africans.

I have heard the same said about Jews who survived the holocaust, POMs in Australia and immigrants in America.

The simple fact is that any human alive today is the product of innumerable choices in the past. Within the past 50,000 years, for each of us, about 1500 men and women had to have had sex at some point, whether by choice or by force. I'd wager that many of the couplings are worthy of a Harlequin romance.

There are about thirty definitions you have to tack on to that statement, starting with "different" and "education." Being indoctrinated in shamanistic hogswaddle for years and being indoctrinated in the doctrines of "women's studies" or Koranic verse for years are no so very different. If you mean we are different by virtue of compiled knowledge and a shift toward scientific and philosophical inquiry, then sure, we're different in our actions, if not our thoughts. But I would suggest to you that we are moments away, at any given time, from reversion to the barbaric. Having said that, neither of us know the degree to which genetics has changed us.

This reminds me of the famous phrase (is it from Joseph Conrad?) "the thin veneer of civilization". Sorry, I don't agree that we are close to the brutality of the past. The present gives us the technology to be uncivilized on a grand scale but it also gives us the education to be civilized. I'm an optimist.

In more direct if cynical terms, people alive today have more to live for and are willing to pay more for a civilized life.

As to your reference to "woman's studies", I'll stand by my criteria above. The measure of a civilized society is whether a woman can choose freely her spouse and whether homosexuals can live freely and openly. The measure of the civility of a society is how the majority treats the minority. Taken to the extreme, we are all a minority of one. Freedom is the freedom of the individual to choose and a civilized society is one where individuals can choose freely - while facing the true costs of their choices.

Don't forget your high-school science classes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype-phenotype_distinction

The physical differences of humans are possibly comparable to the physical differences of cats.

Since you probably know your grandparents and know of your great-grandparents, I think you'll agree that people's genes don't change much in, say, 10 generations or so. Physically, you and your ancestors all pretty much the same. Given the same education as you've had, your great-grandfather could get money from an ATM or fasten an airline seatbelt. My point in this thread was to extend that idea for several generations more. One of your ancestors was alive at the time of Christ (that must be true because you're here now). Your ancestor at that time was outwardly as ignorant as any illiterate, uneducated person alive today.

Hence, my conclusion: the difference in people alive today is not genetic, it's education.

It's still pretty much impossible to separate nurture from nature, and I'm more amazed why some of these academics think it's worth trying to do that.

When it comes to humans, nurture is far more important. Why? Because we have inherited a genetic code that learns. Edited November 18, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

As to your reference to "woman's studies", I'll stand by my criteria above. The measure of a civilized society is whether a woman can choose freely her spouse and whether homosexuals can live freely and openly. The measure of the civility of a society is how the majority treats the minority. Taken to the extreme, we are all a minority of one. Freedom is the freedom of the individual to choose and a civilized society is one where individuals can choose freely - while facing the true costs of their choices.

I'm afraid there's some conceptual confusion in the above. Claiming the status of "minority" for a segment of society carries with it, in today's lexicon, more connotation than the simple mathematical denotation. It carries a twofold moral weight, making of the alleged "minority" a group in need of protection," and claiming for the group moral righteousness. Criminals, pedophiles, and beastialists are "minorities" as well, but I daresay if one were to substitute any of those terms for 'homosexuals,' your logic wouldn't work very well for most people.

Further, you are denoting "women" as a minority. They are not.

Finally, you are mixing the concepts of 'individual' and 'group.' One cannot step from one category to the next without destroying the last category visited. Arguments for 'group' status simply don't work within the context of 'individual.' Witness the concepts of 'majority' and minority.' In an individualistic paradigm those divisions have no meaning. The politics of victimization depend upon the recognition of groups...the slideover from "class," which Marxian derivitives demand.

[jdobbin]

Hence, my conclusion: the difference in people alive today is not genetic, it's education.

Interesting scientific article released this week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TPStory/Science

Human evolution sped up after the end of the last ice age, a team of U.S. researchers says, and people on different continents have changed in distinctive ways.

"Human races are evolving away from each other," said Henry Harpending, a professor of anthropology at the University of Utah and an author of a paper published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

He and his colleagues came to their conclusion after analyzing data published in 2005 by an international team that mapped the genetic differences between four groups: the Yoruba in Nigeria, Americans of Western and North European descent, people from Tokyo and residents of Beijing.

They used new tools to analyze the genomic data, and say the results show that the pace of evolution picked up 40,000 years ago, when humans moved from Africa to other parts of the planet. It appears to have accelerated again 10,000 years ago, as the world's population increased dramatically and people adapted to an agricultural lifestyle instead of eating only what they hunted and gathered.

But evolution went in different directions on different continents, the researchers say. For example, a mutation that allows the body to digest lactose gained ground in Europe, while resistance to malaria took hold in Africa.

"Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin," Dr. Harpending said. "We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity."

But won't immigration, and the mixing that takes place in countries like Canada, at least partly counter the effects of regional evolution?

"The two forces are opposing each other," he said. "I don't know which one is winning."

There is no accepted biological definition for race, and Dr. Harpending and his colleagues didn't use the word in their paper. But Dr. Harpending did use it in interviews and the press release about the paper.

Researchers are increasingly turning to genomics to investigate racial differences, said Tim Caulfield, research director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta.

[ScottSA]

Interesting scientific article released this week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TPStory/Science

At least the scientific community is beginning to talk about it instead of hiding behind Momoesque wordplay to deny that it even exists.

[kengs333]

The measure of a civilized society is... and whether homosexuals can live freely and openly. The measure of the civility of a society is how the majority treats the minority.

Since when has this ever been a measure of anything relating to "civility" or "progress". Whoever put this foolish, backward notion into your head. The right to engage in sexually deviant behaviour is nothing but an indication of how much a society has regressed, how much it is declining in terms of morality.

[kengs333]

Scott, I think that you'll agree that most of us alive today are different from our ancestors alive 50,000 years ago. The difference? It's not genetic. It's education.

No, actually it's morality. Without morality, humans function on a level where base desires are the motivating factor for everything they do and have little inclination to improve or advance themselves.

[Brain Candy]

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

How did this become a racist statement?

We all needed to adapt at least somewhat differently to our surrounding, though obviously for not enough time for us to be different, and thats wonderful and what makes humanity a diverse species. But then again maybe we are actually all the exact same, we all bleed red. after all!

Also...

This "man" cant be racist because he is 16% black, and 40% vegetable!

Edited December 15, 2007 by Brain Candy

[Wild Bill]

Certainly different races have different characteristics. Eskimos tend to make poor basketball players. The Japanese design better robots.

Consider all the different breeds of dogs. Some are smarter than others, some stronger, some faster. What makes the human animal so special?

That being said, while in general collies are not that smart one does meet many SMART collies! And not all Jack Russells are PITA's. Generalizations are always inaccurate and the intelligence of a specific individual of a particular race cannot be accurately predicted.

What's more, the very concept of pure races is vanishing faster and faster in today's Star Trek world. Young love abounds and results in children and we are genetically programmed to consider the exotic or different as a more attractive breeding partner. This is just Nature's way of trying to prevent inbreeding.

Good thing, too! Mutts tend to be stronger, healthier and smarter. Purebreds tend to develop early hip dysplasia or whatever and die. If you want to have healthy grandchildren don't be too cranky about your childrens' choice of partners.

When I had my second daughter my friends started to tease me, asking what was I going to do when they started to bring home boys.

I told them as long as they didn't bring home country singers I could handle anything!

[Higgly]

I am wondering why it is that we put intelligence above all other genetic traits.

The genetic pool is deeper and more complex than we know. Natural selection is more unpredictable than our best guess at the future.

I do not understand how anybody can see Africa as anything but an integral part of the human race.

[ScottSA]

I am wondering why it is that we put intelligence above all other genetic traits.

Because we don't have sharp claws, thick pelts, or four legs, would be my guess. Plus, the question supplies its own answer, for those who have the intelligence to see it.

[Higgly]

Did somebody fart?

[Rue]

I agree, very good post August.

It seems very clear to me that culture and education are the cornerstones of developing future leaders, not genetics or race (though certainly a component of genetics relates to intelligence).

I also again state August I found your post and comments interesting and geoffrey's response to particularly the above words. Probably my only minor thing to add would be Geoffrey I would also like to see a comaparative religion class taught in schools that showed students the things religions have in common and explain why humans have faith belief systems.

[Higgly]

Has anybody seen my Ode to a Fart?

[Brain Candy]

I am wondering why it is that we put intelligence above all other genetic traits.

The genetic pool is deeper and more complex than we know. Natural selection is more unpredictable than our best guess at the future.

I do not understand how anybody can see Africa as anything but an integral part of the human race.

Highly intelligent people are neccessary for all large scale civilisation to function and move forward. It also needs physically fit workers of various skill levels and trades who, while self efficiant enough to take care of their basic needs without being told what to do, need direction when doing their various small but important parts in creating and maintaining civilisation.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Brain Candy