9 ms·

Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Stripped of a Nobel

Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. Find me one credible media outlet which even questioned such treatment! Edit: sorry, I misread a headline about him losing the prize, it read stripped of "honors". Point still stands.

specialist 7y ago
You're claiming that Watson's views of IQ, genetics, and race are scientific?
- frogger23127 7y ago
  Absolutely. Your negative emotional reaction to scientific research is not a valid refutation of that research. Science is based on logic, not emotions. Facts do not care about your feelings.
  - rfdbsd 7y ago
    None of his racist, sexist and homophobic comments are conclusions drawn from his work. He is just a foul and bitter man whose terrible personal views are sadly and foolishly taken seriously, due to his prestige and authority. YOU tell me how any of these bold and outlandish claims are actually based on sound research and logic.
    - frogger23127 7y ago
      No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Of course, some of what he says may just be his personal opinions. You say that he is a foul and bitter man with terrible personal views, but that is your own opinion and not objectively true.
      - rfdbsd 7y ago
        > No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid. The impetus is on _you_.
        frogger23127 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality Of course there's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" toward this research, but those aren't valid refutations.
        frogger23128 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.
        rfdbsd 7y ago
        You clearly didn't even read these wikipedia pages. Although they are about two different publications (one from 2002 and the other from 2006), each book is basically the exact same, and the latter presents the exact same flimsy evidence as the former. Also, from the contents of these very same wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Recep... > Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that "we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." They also wrote that cross country comparisons are "virtually meaningless."[4] > Richardson (2004) argued, citing the Flynn effect as the best evidence, that Lynn has the causal connection backwards and suggested that "the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development". The review concludes that "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade."[3] > In a book review for the Journal of Economic Literature, Thomas Nechyba wrote that "such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[6] > The methods of the study were criticized by Richard E. Nisbett for relying on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions.[10] > University of Reading geographer Stephen Morse also criticized the book (as well as IQ and the Wealth of Nations), arguing that the authors' hypothesis rests on "serious flaws". Morse also argued: "The central dilemma of the Lynn and Vanhanen case rests with their assumption that national IQ data are primarily (not wholly) a function of innate ability, which in turn is at least partly generated by genes. There are many assumptions of cause–effect in here, and some of them involve substantial leaps of faith."[11] > Evolutionary biologist Satoshi Kanazawa claimed in 2008 to have found support for Lynn's theories.[10] Kanazawa's study has been criticized for using the Pythagorean theorem to estimate geographic distance, despite the fact that this theorem only applies to flat surfaces and the Earth's surface is roughly spherical. Other problems identified in this study include that Kanazawa incorrectly assumed that individuals migrated from Africa to other continents migrated as the crow flies, and ignored that geographic distance and evolutionary novelty do not always correspond to each other.[11] > Earl Hunt cited Lynn and Vanhanen's work as an example of scientists going far beyond the empirical support to make controversial policy recommendations, and as such as examples of irresponsible uses of science. Hunt argues that in their argumentation they both made the basic mistake of assigning causality to a correlation without evidence, and that they made "staggeringly low" estimates of Sub-Saharan African IQs based on highly problematic data. He considers that by their negligence of observing good scientific practice Lynn and Vanhanen are not living up to the basic responsibility of scientists to make sure that their results can function as reasonable empirical support for policy decisions.[19] > There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments. This is simply not true. I'm arguing that your claim is not based on solid rational foundations. You are the one throwing around irrational accusations, not me.
  - TorbjornLunde 7y ago
    I find it strange that when people defend so called “race science” today a common argument seems to be along the lines of “this is correct because some people have negative emotional response to something”. While having a negative emotional response to something certainly isn't an counter argument in itself and isn't a pro argument either! A viewpoint isn't correct merely because it pisses some people off. Either way, as far as I know, biologist haven't really considered human races to be biologically meaningful category for quite some time now opting clines[1] which are not discrete, but gradual genetic variations over geographic areas, nor does it follow the traditionally defined racial lines. This is why I'm quite suspicious of people pushing so called “race science” as AFAIK it simply doesn't seem to have evidence behind it, rather, it seems to have specific political viewpoints behind it generally. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Races may not be a biologically valid category but ancestry is, and the fact that some populations are intermediate on a cline doesn’t mean most people can’t be relatively cleanly assigned to a population level continental ancestry group[1]. Ancestry groups may not be valid if you’re a biologist but they’re certainly relevant for those dealing with within species variation[2]. This is not to say that ‘race’ is the be all and end all of ancestry informed medicine but they’re better than nothing. More information is better but acting like crude ancestry measures tells you nothing is pure ignorance. [1] https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-69 https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-215... Developing a set of ancestry-sensitive DNA markers reflecting continental origins of humans By means of our pairwise population FST ranking approach we identified a set of 47 SNPs that could serve as a panel of ASMs at a continental level. [2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Kidd/publication/8209209_Implications_of_biogeography_of_human_populations_for_'race'_and_medicine/links/540c7ee40cf2d8daaacace28.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Kidd/publicatio... Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine In this review, we focus on the biogeographical distribution of genetic variation and address whether or not populations cluster according to the popular concept of ‘race’. We show that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species. Although populations do cluster by broad geographic regions, which generally correspond to socially recognized races, the distribution of genetic variation is quasicontinuous in clinal patterns related to geography. The broad global pattern reflects the accumulation of genetic drift associated with a recent African origin of modern humans, followed by expansion out of Africa and across the rest of the globe. Because disease genes may be geographically restricted due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection, knowledge of individual ancestry will be important for biomedical studies. Identifiers based on race will often be insufficient.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    Such rigorous scientific as the often refuted "Bell Curve." This is just modern day phrenology
    - frogger23129 7y ago
      IQ has been statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. This is only disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but is not disputed by serious academics.
    - frogger23130 7y ago
      IQ has been rigorously statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. This is often disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but not by serious academics.
      - ianleeclark 7y ago
        > IQ has been rigorously statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. You're right, it rigorously shows how well you will do on IQ tests. That's a real useful metric, now isn't it? > This is often disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but not by serious academics. This is often upheld by people with latent fascist sentimentalities that there is some genetical component that makes one group superior to the other.
        alach11 7y ago
        > [IQ] rigorously shows how well you will do on IQ tests. That's a real useful metric, now isn't it? Surely IQ is measuring something useful if it correlates so well with things like job performance, school performance, income, and crime? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_c...
        ianleeclark 7y ago
        > Surely IQ is measuring something useful if it correlates so well with things like job performance, school performance, income, and crime? It might be just correlating to zip code. We know poorer neighborhoods in the US have vastly higher rates of lead which has negative effects against IQ and violence. I've seen far more evidence against the concept of a general intelligence than for.
Fishysoup 7y ago
"Two and two may equal four" being a bunch of nonsensical racist slandering based on no evidence. Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. And trust me, there's been no lack of racist scientists. It's just that bullshit doesn't stick.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. This isn’t true. Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQ scores than whites. Male and female scores on IQ tests are identical by construction. They have different scores on the component sub tests. http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstrea... Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography Since the publication of “The Bell Curve,” many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate cur- rent scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are ac- tually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions re- garded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, ori- gins, and practical consequences of individu- al and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The follow- ing conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdauriemma 7y ago
    Those bell curves don't control for environmental and other non-genetic factors, making your statements - insofar as they are based on the document you linked - irrelevant to the conversation.
    - toomim 7y ago
barry-cotter 7y ago
You can’t be stripped of a Nobel prize.
- 0xADEADBEE 7y ago
  Looks like he sold his medal [0] to ameliorate his loss of earnings; perhaps that's to what GP was referring. [0] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Wats...
  - wdbbdw 7y ago
    He never actually sold it [0]; a billionaire just paid him some cash instead and Watson got to keep his prize. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-billionaire-usmanov-james-watson-nobel-prize-return-scientist https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-bill...
    - tiles 7y ago
      Rather than public crucifixion, it looks like James Watson actually did quite well for himself?
wdbbdw 7y ago
'Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that most experts on intelligence “consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences.” Dr. Collins said he was unaware of any credible research on which Dr. Watson’s “profoundly unfortunate" statement would be based.' [0] I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence, though at 2.5 hours long it may be a bit too thorough. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-geneti... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo edited for formatting
- deogeo 7y ago
  Dr. Francis is either unfamiliar with, or being profoundly misleading of, expert opinion, as surveys show: "In the current study, EQCA experts wereasked what percentage of the US Black-White differences in IQ is, in their view, due to environment or genes. In general, EQCA experts gave a 50–50 (50% genes, 50% environment) response with a slight tilt to the environmental position (51% vs. 49%; Table 3). When EQCA experts were classified into discrete categories (genetic, environmental, or 50–50), 40% favored an environmental position, 43% a genetic position, and 17% assumed 50–50." - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 > I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence 'Attacking' is a good description, as the author of that video went to great lengths to mislead. For example, he says the author of The Bell Curve doesn't understand what 'hereditary' means. But the definition the video author gives for 'hereditary', and the definition given in the book he's reviewing, match almost perfectly. So how did he come to that conclusion? He went out of his way to find a live interview where the book author fumbled his answer, instead of giving the definition from the book he's reviewing, or as you more accurately put it, attacking.
  - wdbbdw 7y ago
    While the quote you pulled from that survey seems to contradict what Dr. Collins said in his statement, the two sentences before that one seem more problematic for the idea that there's even a difference in IQ that can be attributed to race: "There was little to no support for separate subgroup norms for different racial, ethnic, or social groups or for people with different nationalities (natives vs. immigrants), with the percentage of experts favoring separate norms below 25%. There was no clear position among experts regarding environmental and genetic factors in the US Black-White difference in intelligence." Maybe Dr. Collins rubs shoulders with experts other than those surveyed here, who knows. Looking at the SD in the survey responses suggests that the position of the researchers polled in this survey wasn't accurately represented by the quote you posted. The example you use to critique the video I posted is also not very generous, and is a pretty lame rebuttal to what was a very extensive attack on the ideas presented in "The Bell Curve". Do you have any critiques on the more relevant points that the video actually makes? E.g. what is intelligence anyway and how can it be measured, if at all? Or, presuming that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, then how to square the supposition the Bell Curve makes about an idiocracy-style drop in IQ points with the Flynn effect? Another relevant question is what exactly is the scientific support for "race" as anything other than a meaningless label[0]? For example, in the interview of Charles Murray conducted by Sam Harris for his podcast, Murray used Barack Obama as an example of a typical black man, saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, even supposing that there is a difference in IQ between the races, it wouldn't justify denying a job to someone like Barack Obama if he came in applying for one. But, like, why is Obama black and not white? Have you seen a picture of Obama's mom? She's the whitest white lady from Kansas. I was recently working on some cancer project and I had a spreadsheet of the subjects' self-reported race, as well as genetic ancestry results showing the percentage of African ancestry and European ancestry. Some of the respondents who self-reported as African American had 97% European ancestry. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
paganel 7y ago
You would have think that him winning a Nobel prize would have made him aware that IQ tests are a scam, apparently he didn’t.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Watson wasn't crucified, or anything remotely analogous to it, his comments weren't particularly reasonable, and even his own near immediate apology explicitly noted that there was no scientific basis for them. (Though he has since returned to repeating them; the whole thing is weird since at the time he first made them, there was a very recent piece of work which could have been cited as support for the geography/IQ link he suggested, but in between then and the time he went back to issuing them that work had been torn apart for gross methodological errors, including deliberately excluding data to fit the intended conclusion.) > Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. He wasn't stripped of a Nobel prize, and he absolutely wasn't suggesting two plus two may equal four; he made an at best thinly supported claim about geography and IQ combined with a completely unsubstantiated claim about the premises of development policy toward Africa, and drew a dire conclusion from that combination.

specialist 7y ago

You're claiming that Watson's views of IQ, genetics, and race are scientific?

frogger23127 7y ago
Absolutely. Your negative emotional reaction to scientific research is not a valid refutation of that research. Science is based on logic, not emotions. Facts do not care about your feelings.
- rfdbsd 7y ago
  None of his racist, sexist and homophobic comments are conclusions drawn from his work. He is just a foul and bitter man whose terrible personal views are sadly and foolishly taken seriously, due to his prestige and authority. YOU tell me how any of these bold and outlandish claims are actually based on sound research and logic.
  - frogger23127 7y ago
    No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Of course, some of what he says may just be his personal opinions. You say that he is a foul and bitter man with terrible personal views, but that is your own opinion and not objectively true.
    - rfdbsd 7y ago
      > No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid. The impetus is on _you_.
      - frogger23127 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality Of course there's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" toward this research, but those aren't valid refutations.
      - frogger23128 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.
        rfdbsd 7y ago
        You clearly didn't even read these wikipedia pages. Although they are about two different publications (one from 2002 and the other from 2006), each book is basically the exact same, and the latter presents the exact same flimsy evidence as the former. Also, from the contents of these very same wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#Recep... > Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that "we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." They also wrote that cross country comparisons are "virtually meaningless."[4] > Richardson (2004) argued, citing the Flynn effect as the best evidence, that Lynn has the causal connection backwards and suggested that "the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development". The review concludes that "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade."[3] > In a book review for the Journal of Economic Literature, Thomas Nechyba wrote that "such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[6] > The methods of the study were criticized by Richard E. Nisbett for relying on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions.[10] > University of Reading geographer Stephen Morse also criticized the book (as well as IQ and the Wealth of Nations), arguing that the authors' hypothesis rests on "serious flaws". Morse also argued: "The central dilemma of the Lynn and Vanhanen case rests with their assumption that national IQ data are primarily (not wholly) a function of innate ability, which in turn is at least partly generated by genes. There are many assumptions of cause–effect in here, and some of them involve substantial leaps of faith."[11] > Evolutionary biologist Satoshi Kanazawa claimed in 2008 to have found support for Lynn's theories.[10] Kanazawa's study has been criticized for using the Pythagorean theorem to estimate geographic distance, despite the fact that this theorem only applies to flat surfaces and the Earth's surface is roughly spherical. Other problems identified in this study include that Kanazawa incorrectly assumed that individuals migrated from Africa to other continents migrated as the crow flies, and ignored that geographic distance and evolutionary novelty do not always correspond to each other.[11] > Earl Hunt cited Lynn and Vanhanen's work as an example of scientists going far beyond the empirical support to make controversial policy recommendations, and as such as examples of irresponsible uses of science. Hunt argues that in their argumentation they both made the basic mistake of assigning causality to a correlation without evidence, and that they made "staggeringly low" estimates of Sub-Saharan African IQs based on highly problematic data. He considers that by their negligence of observing good scientific practice Lynn and Vanhanen are not living up to the basic responsibility of scientists to make sure that their results can function as reasonable empirical support for policy decisions.[19] > There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments. This is simply not true. I'm arguing that your claim is not based on solid rational foundations. You are the one throwing around irrational accusations, not me.
- TorbjornLunde 7y ago
  I find it strange that when people defend so called “race science” today a common argument seems to be along the lines of “this is correct because some people have negative emotional response to something”. While having a negative emotional response to something certainly isn't an counter argument in itself and isn't a pro argument either! A viewpoint isn't correct merely because it pisses some people off. Either way, as far as I know, biologist haven't really considered human races to be biologically meaningful category for quite some time now opting clines[1] which are not discrete, but gradual genetic variations over geographic areas, nor does it follow the traditionally defined racial lines. This is why I'm quite suspicious of people pushing so called “race science” as AFAIK it simply doesn't seem to have evidence behind it, rather, it seems to have specific political viewpoints behind it generally. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Races may not be a biologically valid category but ancestry is, and the fact that some populations are intermediate on a cline doesn’t mean most people can’t be relatively cleanly assigned to a population level continental ancestry group[1]. Ancestry groups may not be valid if you’re a biologist but they’re certainly relevant for those dealing with within species variation[2]. This is not to say that ‘race’ is the be all and end all of ancestry informed medicine but they’re better than nothing. More information is better but acting like crude ancestry measures tells you nothing is pure ignorance. [1] https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-69 https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-215... Developing a set of ancestry-sensitive DNA markers reflecting continental origins of humans By means of our pairwise population FST ranking approach we identified a set of 47 SNPs that could serve as a panel of ASMs at a continental level. [2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Kidd/publication/8209209_Implications_of_biogeography_of_human_populations_for_'race'_and_medicine/links/540c7ee40cf2d8daaacace28.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Kidd/publicatio... Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine In this review, we focus on the biogeographical distribution of genetic variation and address whether or not populations cluster according to the popular concept of ‘race’. We show that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species. Although populations do cluster by broad geographic regions, which generally correspond to socially recognized races, the distribution of genetic variation is quasicontinuous in clinal patterns related to geography. The broad global pattern reflects the accumulation of genetic drift associated with a recent African origin of modern humans, followed by expansion out of Africa and across the rest of the globe. Because disease genes may be geographically restricted due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection, knowledge of individual ancestry will be important for biomedical studies. Identifiers based on race will often be insufficient.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  Such rigorous scientific as the often refuted "Bell Curve." This is just modern day phrenology
  - frogger23129 7y ago
    IQ has been statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. This is only disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but is not disputed by serious academics.
  - frogger23130 7y ago
    IQ has been rigorously statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. This is often disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but not by serious academics.
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      > IQ has been rigorously statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. You're right, it rigorously shows how well you will do on IQ tests. That's a real useful metric, now isn't it? > This is often disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but not by serious academics. This is often upheld by people with latent fascist sentimentalities that there is some genetical component that makes one group superior to the other.
      - alach11 7y ago
        > [IQ] rigorously shows how well you will do on IQ tests. That's a real useful metric, now isn't it? Surely IQ is measuring something useful if it correlates so well with things like job performance, school performance, income, and crime? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_c...
        ianleeclark 7y ago
        > Surely IQ is measuring something useful if it correlates so well with things like job performance, school performance, income, and crime? It might be just correlating to zip code. We know poorer neighborhoods in the US have vastly higher rates of lead which has negative effects against IQ and violence. I've seen far more evidence against the concept of a general intelligence than for.

Fishysoup 7y ago

"Two and two may equal four" being a bunch of nonsensical racist slandering based on no evidence. Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. And trust me, there's been no lack of racist scientists. It's just that bullshit doesn't stick.

barry-cotter 7y ago
> Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. This isn’t true. Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQ scores than whites. Male and female scores on IQ tests are identical by construction. They have different scores on the component sub tests. http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstrea... Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography Since the publication of “The Bell Curve,” many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate cur- rent scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are ac- tually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions re- garded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, ori- gins, and practical consequences of individu- al and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The follow- ing conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jdauriemma 7y ago
  Those bell curves don't control for environmental and other non-genetic factors, making your statements - insofar as they are based on the document you linked - irrelevant to the conversation.
  - toomim 7y ago

barry-cotter 7y ago

You can’t be stripped of a Nobel prize.

0xADEADBEE 7y ago
Looks like he sold his medal [0] to ameliorate his loss of earnings; perhaps that's to what GP was referring. [0] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Wats...
- wdbbdw 7y ago
  He never actually sold it [0]; a billionaire just paid him some cash instead and Watson got to keep his prize. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-billionaire-usmanov-james-watson-nobel-prize-return-scientist https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-bill...
  - tiles 7y ago
    Rather than public crucifixion, it looks like James Watson actually did quite well for himself?

wdbbdw 7y ago

'Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that most experts on intelligence “consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences.” Dr. Collins said he was unaware of any credible research on which Dr. Watson’s “profoundly unfortunate" statement would be based.' [0] I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence, though at 2.5 hours long it may be a bit too thorough. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-geneti... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo edited for formatting

deogeo 7y ago
Dr. Francis is either unfamiliar with, or being profoundly misleading of, expert opinion, as surveys show: "In the current study, EQCA experts wereasked what percentage of the US Black-White differences in IQ is, in their view, due to environment or genes. In general, EQCA experts gave a 50–50 (50% genes, 50% environment) response with a slight tilt to the environmental position (51% vs. 49%; Table 3). When EQCA experts were classified into discrete categories (genetic, environmental, or 50–50), 40% favored an environmental position, 43% a genetic position, and 17% assumed 50–50." - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 > I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence 'Attacking' is a good description, as the author of that video went to great lengths to mislead. For example, he says the author of The Bell Curve doesn't understand what 'hereditary' means. But the definition the video author gives for 'hereditary', and the definition given in the book he's reviewing, match almost perfectly. So how did he come to that conclusion? He went out of his way to find a live interview where the book author fumbled his answer, instead of giving the definition from the book he's reviewing, or as you more accurately put it, attacking.
- wdbbdw 7y ago
  While the quote you pulled from that survey seems to contradict what Dr. Collins said in his statement, the two sentences before that one seem more problematic for the idea that there's even a difference in IQ that can be attributed to race: "There was little to no support for separate subgroup norms for different racial, ethnic, or social groups or for people with different nationalities (natives vs. immigrants), with the percentage of experts favoring separate norms below 25%. There was no clear position among experts regarding environmental and genetic factors in the US Black-White difference in intelligence." Maybe Dr. Collins rubs shoulders with experts other than those surveyed here, who knows. Looking at the SD in the survey responses suggests that the position of the researchers polled in this survey wasn't accurately represented by the quote you posted. The example you use to critique the video I posted is also not very generous, and is a pretty lame rebuttal to what was a very extensive attack on the ideas presented in "The Bell Curve". Do you have any critiques on the more relevant points that the video actually makes? E.g. what is intelligence anyway and how can it be measured, if at all? Or, presuming that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, then how to square the supposition the Bell Curve makes about an idiocracy-style drop in IQ points with the Flynn effect? Another relevant question is what exactly is the scientific support for "race" as anything other than a meaningless label[0]? For example, in the interview of Charles Murray conducted by Sam Harris for his podcast, Murray used Barack Obama as an example of a typical black man, saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, even supposing that there is a difference in IQ between the races, it wouldn't justify denying a job to someone like Barack Obama if he came in applying for one. But, like, why is Obama black and not white? Have you seen a picture of Obama's mom? She's the whitest white lady from Kansas. I was recently working on some cancer project and I had a spreadsheet of the subjects' self-reported race, as well as genetic ancestry results showing the percentage of African ancestry and European ancestry. Some of the respondents who self-reported as African American had 97% European ancestry. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...

paganel 7y ago

You would have think that him winning a Nobel prize would have made him aware that IQ tests are a scam, apparently he didn’t.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Watson wasn't crucified, or anything remotely analogous to it, his comments weren't particularly reasonable, and even his own near immediate apology explicitly noted that there was no scientific basis for them. (Though he has since returned to repeating them; the whole thing is weird since at the time he first made them, there was a very recent piece of work which could have been cited as support for the geography/IQ link he suggested, but in between then and the time he went back to issuing them that work had been torn apart for gross methodological errors, including deliberately excluding data to fit the intended conclusion.) > Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. He wasn't stripped of a Nobel prize, and he absolutely wasn't suggesting two plus two may equal four; he made an at best thinly supported claim about geography and IQ combined with a completely unsubstantiated claim about the premises of development policy toward Africa, and drew a dire conclusion from that combination.