2 ms·
(Replying to my own comment) Found this on Wikipedia[1]: "Since the beginning of IQ testing around the time of World War I there have been observed difference
by throwaway32893 8y ago
(Replying to my own comment)
Found this on Wikipedia[1]:
"Since the beginning of IQ testing around the time of World War I there have been observed differences between average scores of different population groups, but there has been no agreement about whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or mainly due to some genetic factor, or even if the dichotomy between environmental and genetic factors is the most effectual approach to the debate."
So that appears to confirm -- the differences in IQ test scores do exist, but there is disagreement on how to explain the differences.
Watson's claims exceed what the evidence supports, in that he claims the differences are genetic, but the evidence is incapable of telling us whether that is the case or not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intell...
- throwaway32893 8y agoI just realized another way that Watson's claims exceed the evidence. He said, "I'm worried about Africa because our policies assume their IQ is the same as ours" (paraphrase, not an exact quote). To base "worry" about a section of the world on differences in IQ tests relies on the assumption that IQ is a major determinant in how a section of the world fares. In other words, even if you accept that we have evidence of IQ differences, we have no evidence measuring moral differences, community/social differences, ambition levels, etc. So his comment doesn't reflect careful, nuanced thought. For someone who usually does think carefully, it's not unreasonable to think the lack of careful thought here is driven by a desire to confirm a pre-existing bias (such as the bias that whites are superior).