5 ms·

Where is the actual data we can look at? The article seemed not to cover this. As difficult as the topic may be socially/ethically, there is either truth in the

Where is the actual data we can look at? The article seemed not to cover this. As difficult as the topic may be socially/ethically, there is either truth in the idea that certain races are on average more intelligent than others, or there isn't. It's frustrating for me that as a society, we'd rather silence the bad man than challenge difficult ideas.

jakobegger 8y ago
I don't understand why we should listen to him in the first place? Why would we pay attention to what a retired scientist says about a topic that he didn't actually work on? It doesn't sound like Watson actually did any research about possible relationships between IQ and race. It sounds like he's just making random remarks, and people only listen to him because he won a Nobel price some time ago, in a somewhat related, but still completely different field.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  I’m not a biologist, but I didn’t think DNA and genetics were completely different. People only listen to him because he won a Nobel prize? You say this as though winning a Nobel prize is no big deal. I was under the impression that it was a big deal. Based on his merits as a scientist — backed up by previously mentioned Nobel prize — I think his propositions should at least be considered. If he is wrong, then whatever data he is citing should be easily enough falsified. Again I say this as a layman, but if the guy is wrong, use the data to show that he is wrong. That’s how science works. Rejecting his position because it makes you uncomfortable is not far off book burning.
  - l0b0 8y ago
    I believe GP's point was that this is a geneticist making very broad statements about IQ test results, a very much debatable measure of general intelligence, and using anecdotes like “people who have to deal with black employees” as a reason for being “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” It's by no means the first time a scientist makes broad and what seems like unsubstantiated statements about something very tangentially related to their area of expertise. Saying he knows what he's talking about because he's got a Nobel prize is a simple case of appeal to authority[1]. [1][https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-t...]
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Try thinking of it this way: "I'm a medical doctor, so that's why you should totally believe my made up BS about what's wrong with your car." Having expertise in one field absolutely doesn't make you qualified to speak with authority on something else. Citing your unrelated credentials in another field is a bit like wearing a McDonald's uniform to prove you're important and should be obeyed in that it works shockingly often, but it really shouldn't. Any uniform at all, even a high school band uniform, gets reacted to by a lot of people like you are an authority whose orders should be obeyed, even though you really aren't. Some mental shortcuts for deciding what you should believe can easily lead people astray. This is one of them.
MagicPropmaker 8y ago
The article is about a documentary that's running about this complicated man. I don't know why a story about the man who co-discovered the structure of DNA was flagged here.
happytoexplain 8y ago
I appreciate the feeling this point of view is based on, but whenever I see it, I can't quite see where it's going. I don't see many people claiming there is no amount of factual truth available now or that there can be none found in the future. The problem seems more to be that many people use the subject as a justification for some laterally related ideological attack - against a race or against a politically opposed group of people. As though being able to prove that a race is more/less intelligent than another by some meaningful metric is somehow an ideological win. That's where I perceive most of the noise to be coming from.

jakobegger 8y ago

I don't understand why we should listen to him in the first place? Why would we pay attention to what a retired scientist says about a topic that he didn't actually work on? It doesn't sound like Watson actually did any research about possible relationships between IQ and race. It sounds like he's just making random remarks, and people only listen to him because he won a Nobel price some time ago, in a somewhat related, but still completely different field.

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
I’m not a biologist, but I didn’t think DNA and genetics were completely different. People only listen to him because he won a Nobel prize? You say this as though winning a Nobel prize is no big deal. I was under the impression that it was a big deal. Based on his merits as a scientist — backed up by previously mentioned Nobel prize — I think his propositions should at least be considered. If he is wrong, then whatever data he is citing should be easily enough falsified. Again I say this as a layman, but if the guy is wrong, use the data to show that he is wrong. That’s how science works. Rejecting his position because it makes you uncomfortable is not far off book burning.
- l0b0 8y ago
  I believe GP's point was that this is a geneticist making very broad statements about IQ test results, a very much debatable measure of general intelligence, and using anecdotes like “people who have to deal with black employees” as a reason for being “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” It's by no means the first time a scientist makes broad and what seems like unsubstantiated statements about something very tangentially related to their area of expertise. Saying he knows what he's talking about because he's got a Nobel prize is a simple case of appeal to authority[1]. [1][https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-t...]
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Try thinking of it this way: "I'm a medical doctor, so that's why you should totally believe my made up BS about what's wrong with your car." Having expertise in one field absolutely doesn't make you qualified to speak with authority on something else. Citing your unrelated credentials in another field is a bit like wearing a McDonald's uniform to prove you're important and should be obeyed in that it works shockingly often, but it really shouldn't. Any uniform at all, even a high school band uniform, gets reacted to by a lot of people like you are an authority whose orders should be obeyed, even though you really aren't. Some mental shortcuts for deciding what you should believe can easily lead people astray. This is one of them.

MagicPropmaker 8y ago

The article is about a documentary that's running about this complicated man. I don't know why a story about the man who co-discovered the structure of DNA was flagged here.

happytoexplain 8y ago

I appreciate the feeling this point of view is based on, but whenever I see it, I can't quite see where it's going. I don't see many people claiming there is no amount of factual truth available now or that there can be none found in the future. The problem seems more to be that many people use the subject as a justification for some laterally related ideological attack - against a race or against a politically opposed group of people. As though being able to prove that a race is more/less intelligent than another by some meaningful metric is somehow an ideological win. That's where I perceive most of the noise to be coming from.