+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/17/2018 09:09 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  10.886 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/17/2007 11:10 AM ID: 65729 Permalink   

'Whites More Intelligent' Says Nobel Scientist


James Watson, one of the world’s most eminent scientists and winner of a Nobel Prize has caused a firestorm of criticism after reportedly claiming that white people are more intelligent than black people.

Dr Watson said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

The 79-year-old geneticist went on to say that despite his wishing that everyone was equal "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
I think this is the only lone nut claiming this so there may be an unnecessary "s" at the end of the title . Amazing how getting a noble doesn't stop someone from being a total P***K.... btw imagine being the only black candidate in a job interview to join this guys team ...
  by: Hugo Chavez     10/17/2007 11:15 AM     
someone who had dealt with maybe one or two black people in their entire lives and draw massive conclusions from little bits circumstantial claims. But back in his time, that sort of attitude was not only accepted but normal. Sounds like an old kook who didn't grow up with the times.
  by: tiggyfiggy   10/17/2007 11:31 AM     
  In theory  
This could be true. Black people developed slightly different to white people (And Asian people etc), the skin colour is the obvious one but it is quite possible that there are some other differences, such as the ability to learn.

I am not saying I agree with this guy, so don't hit me with the racist stick. But I just think it may well be something worth investigating rather than just dismissing as racist.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/17/2007 11:41 AM     
Yup, the student definate would have called you a w*nker.

Law Student Suspended over Pat Robertson Photo, Told to Have Psychiatric Evaluation
  by: redstain   10/17/2007 12:04 PM     
  Well I'll be  
This is true but not because they cannot be as intelligent. But rather they are not educated as well as some whites. Also the culture of the people can determine how well of an education they will receive. A real test to determine this will compare a black persons and white persons that received the exact same education in the comparison.
  by: webfeind   10/17/2007 12:32 PM     
Even if he is right, where is the line drawn? You can't just clump the whole of Africa into a group, the differences between them are massive. Take the West Africans (where most US slaves came from) they are well built and strong, then there are the tall midnight black Sudanese, then the lighter, thinner Kenyans, then the more Arab looking Egyptians who were once the dominant race on the planet... I really don't think doc has thought this through.
  by: lachs     10/17/2007 12:34 PM     
I don't see anything racist in his words,
this simply could be a scientific fact, why not ? they have a different pigment, different way of life, so they might be different in other things as well.
However, in any case, that doesn't make 'em less human than we are
  by: gago   10/17/2007 12:36 PM     
Eh? Whats that got to do with this thread?

All I was saying is that is is possible for there to be something other than racism or stupidity behind what this bloke said.

Or do you completely refuse to see any possible difference between black people and white people? There is one (Colour), so why not two, or three etc?
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/17/2007 12:40 PM     
They're better than Whites at a lot of sports.. Why wouldn't it be possible that on average they're slower at learning?
  by: g0bl1n   10/17/2007 12:47 PM     
“It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. " ( from the source )

so his theory is based on black employes ..

what about black people who have greater responsabilities ? they're not include in the study ? ah..

i'm really sorry to hear that from a guy like him and i'm even more sorry to read some of the comments here.

  by: ProTesTa     10/17/2007 01:11 PM     
  I believe  
to have heard that blacks also have 30% less fluid in their fat deposits, which make them look more athletic than whites, there are quite a few differences, it can't be denied.
  by: cavedude   10/17/2007 01:15 PM     
the arguments about genetics and education.

Black and white (and eastern for that matter) genetic makeup is different, fact. It's not racist to accept that there's a specific genetic reason behind skin colour, it would also be short sighted to suggest that there can't be other genetically defined differences (i.e. intelligence).

Also, in Africa there is less of an education on offer to most people, again, fact. They will likely be less academically aware and possibly not exposed to thought and reasoning processes learnt during education.

Unfortunately, as certain human beings aren't ready to accept that there are differences between us (usually the ones that shout the loudest unfortunately) this will probably be written off as racism and not assessed on it's true scientific merit. Which is ignorant and achieves nothing.
  by: Maxx20     10/17/2007 01:36 PM     
  Humans are just like any other species  
you get different breeds/races with different strengths and weaknesses.

Take a look at dogs, border collies are very intelligent and highly trainable, but they can be temperamental and are probably more likely to snap and bite someone than another breed, it's just their nature. On the other hand, you have something like a boxer, which is not as smart, they tend to be a bit dopey, but are typically less aggressive too. This doesn't mean that one breed is better than the other, they are just different. To say that I think boxers are a bit lacking in the brains department is not me being anti-boxer and pro-collie.

So why shouldn't it be the same with humans? I'm not racist, all races are just as human and just as important as eachother, although genetically we are different and some races have advantages in certain areas. Typically black people are leaner and more muscular, making them more naturally athletic than most white people. By saying that black people are generally better at running than white people does that mean I'm being racist against whites by saying they aren't as good as black people? So why is it racist to suggest that maybe white people have an intellectual advantage over black people? I don't know if this is true or if any valid studies have been carried out to investigate this theory, but it could be the case.

Humans are all equal in the sense that we should all have the same rights and be treated with the same level of respect, but that doesn't mean that we are genetically the same, there's more to a race than just skin colour.
  by: TabbyCool     10/17/2007 01:50 PM     
How do you win a Nobel prize and then spew such garbage!?

If the same science and history, serves us well, than, don't we all, originate from Africans?

If he were to single out Africans, does this mean those who are born else where as well or in the African continent?

Well, he has the bullHorn and he is White, I am sure many, even here at SN, are welcoming this comment with

"I knew it" BAH :(....Humanity!!!
  by: isuzu     10/17/2007 02:18 PM     
Guys, chill the @#$% out for a second.

Has anyone even considered that he may have been speaking from a purely scientific or statistical point of view here?
Maybe he's so absorb in numbers and research results that it never occured to him how offensive it sounds?
Or maybe he is the racist asshat you all instantly accuse him of being.

The point is I wouldn't just go ahead and assume he's full of shit just because he said something bad about black people, god forbid they as a people have a trait that's not benefitial or inferior, it's never happened before in any other species right?
  by: silentrage   10/17/2007 02:33 PM     
  Well the whites did enslave the blacks...  
Never the other way round I don't think...

Anyways I'm brown and I'm a realist, so I hate you all equally. Okay not really, I love you guys ; ]
  by: zmethod     10/17/2007 02:38 PM     
  My 2 cents...  
I'd like to add to the comments about there beig differences physiologically between different races. I've seen some comments about the athleticism of blacks vs white. While all of this supposition if largely generalized, there is some truth to it. I've heard before that blacks, as a race, are built differently with respect to their hamstring and glute muscles and that they attach at a higher point on the rear than in white physiology. This gives them a greater potential to be a good runner. We're not all the same.
  by: MercDude   10/17/2007 03:15 PM     
u can't say all black people are more athletic than white people, u'll find a lot of whites who are more athletic than most of black people.

but this scientist states " whites are more intelligent ", in other words, it's like saying ALL black people are dumber than ALL white people ..


as example u'll find a lot of blacks who are way more intelligent than most whites..

it's a question of education and it depends also on the environment in which u grow all your life..

some of the statements here make me remember of what guys like hitler tried to put on the table.

congrats guys.
  by: ProTesTa     10/17/2007 03:29 PM     
  @ ProTesTA  
Congratulations, you've just proved Godwin's Law.
  by: MercDude   10/17/2007 03:36 PM     
That's not what he's saying at all. It's a generalisation, he's not saying that all white people are smarter than all black people, just that on average, white people are smarter.

Adults are generally taller than children, but not all adults are taller than all children, you get adults who are dwarves and some kids who are just freakishly tall. It's the same thing, a generalisation rather than a rule that can be applied in every case.
  by: TabbyCool     10/17/2007 03:40 PM     
so what are you saying. that intelligent black people are an exception to the rule?
  by: Amaze   10/17/2007 04:35 PM     
  Hold on people  
Just saw this one on the news ...turns out that this guy James Watson didn't actually present anything in the way of science other than “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true” to back this up and to make matters even worse he said not so long ago that mothers should have the right to abort if their babies are going to be born gay ...

So he's not racist caus he hates gays as well what would that make him ...???
  by: Hugo Chavez     10/17/2007 04:44 PM     
I think intelligent people (Regardless of colour) seem to be the exception rather than the rule!

However I think what he is saying is that due to genetic differences an average white person would be more intelligent than and identically educated average black person.

Yes there are obviously intelligent black people and thick white people, but from what he says if you average the general intelligence of both blank and white people, white people would come out on top.

Maybe this is because due to where white people live they developed faster, thus it was white people that developed the technology to enslave the rest of the world.

Maybe genetically black people will catch or surpass white people one day.

But it is worth looking into I think.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/17/2007 04:44 PM     
  just in case you missed that one  
CANBERRA, Australia (CWN) - A Nobel Prize-winning scientist became the object of scorn and outrage on Monday after he proposed that an unborn child that displays a so-called "gay" gene be aborted.

Dr. James Watson, 68, who helped discover DNA, reportedly told the London Sunday Telegraph: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her (abort the fetus)."
Catholic World News, News Brief 02/17/1997
  by: Hugo Chavez     10/17/2007 04:46 PM     
That's pretty harsh, but just because the guy's personal opinions might be stuck in the dark ages it doesn't mean his scientific opinion is without merit.
  by: TabbyCool     10/17/2007 04:51 PM     
  @Hugo Chavez  
Ah well that sheds a bit more light on the comments I guess.

However his comments on aborting gay babies should be something worth considering. If gayness is genetic then that gene could be considered a non-beneficial mutation.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/17/2007 04:52 PM     
  Free Speech  
This is all about the First Amendment. Let's not follow the gov't down the path of censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Ron Paul and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for Nobel winners like Watson and Al Gore).
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
  by: Reader11722   10/17/2007 04:56 PM     
thats the whole point it appears to be a personal opinion not a scientific one ....
  by: Hugo Chavez     10/17/2007 05:17 PM     
That's fair enough then, I hadn't read the source article, I assumed the guy had at least done some sort of study into this rather than just making some rash statement about black people in general just because he happened to know someone who was both black and stupid!
  by: TabbyCool     10/17/2007 05:25 PM     
  There's gay gene?  
Didn't know that.

Also, what would be the (genetic) purpose of aborting a 'gay foetus'? Since said foetus, when grown, is not going to re-produce and pass anything on, it doesn't affect the species (genetically).

Also, back on topic, there are genetic factors affecting different 'breeds' of the human race, whether this guy has suggested it because of science or stupidity however is a different matter.

Given some of the reactions on here, there are still intelligent people out there not willing to accept that we are simply mammals and therefore the subject of the same evolutionary forces as every other mammal on the planet.
  by: Maxx20     10/17/2007 05:26 PM     
The reason you might want to abort a gay child is because you may feel unable to bring the child up properly if that conflicts with your personal beliefs.

It is nothing to do with illness etc, but I think it is a good thing that parents can get a choice about their kids. I know I would find a gay son as hard to cope with as a son with say downs syndrome.

Neither are the childrens fault, but then again I wouldn't want to bring them into a world where I could not look after them well enough.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/17/2007 05:57 PM     
  Actual Studies  
Dr Watson said "..the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University, told the Independent: “If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.”

Any chance there are actual scientific studies that address this issue? Both sides seem to cite studies without citing studies.

Of course, Dr. Watson may be correct and incorrect. It would depend on how intelligence is defined.
  by: David M Barger     10/17/2007 06:08 PM     
  The "Race" straw mand  
The problem with Dr. Watson's comments is that he seems to recodnize the exhistance of a "black race" however no one can define or identify the meaning of the term "blacks".
Fact is that genetic studies show that 90% of American "blacks" have some European genes and if someone has a white parent they are still defined as "black" both in Europe and North America. So it could not be baste on Ancestry.
It could not be baste on skin colour as most "blacks do not have actual black skin and even people with light skin are defined as "black"
We talk about black culture but the black cutlure in america is defined by it's love of soul food which is not african food, Ebonics which is not an african language and styles of dress which did not originate in Africa. So it is not life style either.
There is alot of talk on this board of the black athletic genes. If someone is 40% european and 60 percent black does that mean that they are 40% less athletic than a supposid full blooded african.
If genes ditermin athletic ability to why don't actual black africans dominate the olymic sprint instead of black americans and black Britons. Should we not assume that a full blooded African should beable to out-run a black american who may have european and African genes.
Finally now that we no that most americans admitt to cheating academically and many athletes use performance inhancing drugs should we not assume that our observations of society may be flawed. Since there a facts that come in to play that we cannot see on test scores or athletic programes.
  by: johnscot23   10/17/2007 06:59 PM     
  There are statistics..  
Such as SAT scores, where blacks score lower than white and Asians. There are also IQ tests (which by itself is very inaccurate) that says Blacks has lower IQ, while Ashkenazi Jews has the highest IQ. White has average IQ.

There are also other things like college education, average income per capital, etc.

However, correlation do not mean causation. There are far more likely reasons which attribute to the statistic, such as cultural and more importantly, economics. Take SAT for example, if just by looking at race, Blacks do indeed score the lowest. However, if the score is viewed in terms of average annual income, then poor blacks score just as high (or rather, low) as poor whites.

So while the statement African Americans on average are less educated is technically true, until we have completely mapped human genome and determined exactly how intelligence genes work, saying black are dumber than white genetically is just asking for trouble, and bad science.
  by: dimeron   10/17/2007 07:06 PM     
You raise some good points which is exactly why I think it would be a good idea to do a study on this.

We need to look at heritage (IE: Where parents, grandparents etc come from), where you are born, your skin colour etc and see exactly what the differences are.

Until we stop claiming racism every time someone says black people can be different we will never truly know if they are, and how.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/17/2007 07:11 PM     
He is equating intelligence with "book knowledge", for some thats all you need to be considered intelligent although I know MANY educated people who lack the intelligence needed to survive in the world when it doesnt involve something they read in a book. Historically whites have managed to put themselves in better positions to become more "intelligent" ex. the crusades, hundreds of years of oppression of other races (native americans , blacks)not pointing fingers but we have all had history lessons. If any other one race had the freedom and access to all of the opportunities that whites have made for themselves then other minorities would probably score on the same level. Just like if whites had been made to perform mainly manual labor for hundreds of years they would have developed a better ability at sports and manual labor.
  by: h0tdamn365   10/17/2007 07:21 PM     
  Not racist  
I agree with gago completely. Don't black people have a larger lung capacity aswell? Physical differences aside, why is it hard to believe they might not have the same brain capacity/intelligence

Obviously this doesn't mean that all black people are dumb, or that white people are smarter, just they don't have that advantage

Where he says "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." What exactily does he mean by that?
  by: JayWar   10/17/2007 09:31 PM     
... is a racist, homophobic, sexist prick.

I've heard him talk on a number of occasions and he always peppers his speeches (when not outright swinging a sledgehammer) with his entirely inappropriate social commentary.

Watson is a biochemist and is entriely unqualified to make the statements he does. He's a dinosaur from an age in science where minorites and women were looked down upon as being mentally inferior (despite the fact that he and Crick stole a signficant ammount of research that lead to their Nobel Prize from a woman crystalologist that worked in the next lab over).

Watson is a big name in genetics, which is why he gets the attention he does. But remember he's not really qualified to speak on matters outside of biochemistry -- and statements that evaluate racial fitness are so outside his area that it might as well be making statements about Peruvian poetry.

Yes, there are genetic differences between the races but these differences are mostly physcial or cosmetic in nature. When it comes to intelligence there are of course genetic influences but I am not aware of any that are strictly racial in nature. Developing one's intellect is much more an exersize of environment that biology. Irregardless of race, those brought up in nurturing, stable environments have a better chance of developing to their full mental potential. Unfortuantly many blacks are not afforded this opportunity because of the ecomomic status they are brought up in.

In nations where there are blacks do not come predominatly from gehttos or their equivalents (like Japan or China), their mental development is on par with the native populations.
  by: Dedolito     10/17/2007 10:54 PM     
  You all know  
That the statement he made is true. Stop trying to be politically correct for once and look at statistics. This isn't about racism its about reality. In reality, the average white person is alot smarter then t he average black person. That is a highly accurate statement. Its easily explainable by looking at the education systems in countries with a white majority then say countries in africa. The well educated American or British black person isn't the norm. The average black person on a global scale still lives in a hut in africa. There simply are not white cultures that exist in such backwards social orders. Africa black's numbers way down. Even if you just looked at say the averages in the U.S. whites are still going to be higher as the majority of them went to better schools and grew up under circumstances that allowed them to develop more of their cognitive abilities.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     10/17/2007 11:29 PM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  

The statement Watson made was based on his opinion that blacks are GENETICALLY inferior to whites.

Whereas your statement, and the others above, are saying that its ENVIRONMENTAL factors that are limiting black potential.
  by: Dedolito     10/17/2007 11:44 PM     
  True statement  
Theres still ongoing study that postulates environment can impact physical genetics DURING lifespan, so let's just bypass all that.

Lets look into pop-culture, because this is (beyond parenting) the most common force to impact our youth. Let's look at Afro-American pop culture, using BET vs MTV for example. On the MTV side of the house, we have quite a bit of trivial garbage revolving around good looks, cars, wealth, etc. I wouldn't say I observe a significant drive towards womanizing, theft, drugs, murder/violence, or gang behavior. White kids generally grow up in married or divorced (sill in contact) households above the poverty line, going to good schools, living in good areas. GENERALLY, of course with ample exceptions. They grow up watching stupid, but easily dismissable and generally harmless dribble in their version of popculture.

In comparison, a black youth is often raised in a single-mom (no contact, no father figure, no child support) home, near or below the poverty line, living in poorer areas and thus going to poorer schools. Watch a sampling of 10 random rap videos. If by the end of that time you have not seen themes of womanizing, drug use, gang violence, personal violent vendettas, vulgarity, racism, anti-establishment, and abuse, I would be surprised. And when the neighborhood you live in really does seem to warrant you having a 'crew' to keep you 'safe', well, you know the rest.

Do I know black lawyers who are brilliant, black engineers who make me look like a retard? Sure! But those are the exception.

The underlying question is whether this behavior roots from societal differences or million-year hard scientific evolutionary differences between Africans and Eurasians. And that is a question any scientist of today would be a fool to comment decisively on.
  by: japh   10/18/2007 12:01 AM     
  How does one explain...  
Look, I'm black, so I can't be held as a racist. But I just don't understand how else to explain the statistics.

I have family in the Detroit, Michigan area and the numbers draw an interesting picture to those who have never been there.
As of the 2000 census,
82.70% of the population is black, and 12.26% is white. The 3rd largest ethnic group are the hispanics at less than 5%.
More than 1/3 (34.5%) of the people live at or below the poverty line. That tells you that out of 15 random people you run into,
5 live in poverty and of those 5,
4 of them are black!

When I go to Oak Cliff in South Dallas, I'm not afraid of the random white guy or mexican down there... it's the blacks. Purple leather seats, gold teeth, "bling-bling" and other crap wasn't made famous by any other ethnic group.

Bill Cosby had a point. Why can't the majority of black people lose the attitude?

Once you go black, you won't go back.
Once you go asian, you'll never want caucasian.
and once you go mexican, you'll never want sex again ^_^
I've never heard about Godwin's Law before ^_^ Thanks MercDude. That's hilarious!
  by: coldicezero     10/18/2007 12:06 AM     
  This isn't true according to movies.  
In movies the white person will stand there for an incredibly long time for a monster to jump out of a closet while the black man will run for their life. Oddly enough, the black man usually dies and the white man lives? As for women, stay away from showers or having sex in bed.
  by: Jon_Hall     10/18/2007 01:44 AM     
Can you give me an airtight definition of the term
That can be universally accepted by every culture.
In Africa a light skinned black man is White.
In Russia Italians are Blacks
In south Africa a mixed race person is coloured
Try giving me an air tight definition
  by: johnscot23   10/18/2007 02:07 AM     
re: popular black culture

Are you not aware that demographically speaking, the black "counter culture" industry -- ie the rap, the music videos, etc -- is fueled more by white suburbia teens than gehtto blacks?

Oops, there goes that theory...
  by: Dedolito     10/18/2007 02:16 AM     
  @ crazy old cracker  
I'm all for free speech, that's why I support the right to blast this jackass' remarks without mercy. For someone, a supposed geneticist no less, to make such a grandiose and controversial generalization - you would expect them to have some large (however biased) study to back up their claim. WTF?

As Dedolito pointed out (who is probably more knowledgeable than any of us on genetics), Watson is making the claim that blacks are genetically inferior at learning, not what through environment and time they have learned or been allowed to learn in many cases.

I'm curious (because I honestly don't know and haven't looked into it) what studies have been done on the heredity of learning potential. For instance, hypothetically, we take several children of differing racial and geographic backgrounds, who were born of artificial insemination (no differing histories in infancy), into the same clinical educational/laboratory type environment - teach them all the same material, etc, until early childhood, and test them all as to what they are able to learn. Barring genetic factors such as true learning disabilities (handicaps), what would the differences be? My guess is that they would be negligible and inconclusive. But I really don't have any idea, I don't have they background in science (other than a few biology classes) or any studies to quote. I personally believe that most if not all differences in the "intelligence" of peoples from diff races/geographies is due to environmental factors and has nothing to do with any genetic impedance to learning with relation to race or geography. Any studies to confirm or deny this sort of thing (not done by nazis or any other group with heavy bias)?

@coldicezero... you say you're black, but you're supporting the idea that black people are genetically inferior learners? I believe you have just ruled out the validity of any of your arguments. You'd better just sit back and let us white guys do all the debating then. ;^) /joke.
  by: spiggy   10/18/2007 04:12 AM     
  Bravo Dr. Watson!  
Finally someone in the Academia has the guts to say out loud what the rest of the world has known for centuries. It has been demonstrated again and again in every field of human endeavor that East Asians and Jews are among the smartest people on the planet followed closely only by the Whites of Europe. Everybody knows this and yet every one is afraid to speak against the anti-racism cabal which has grown quite influential after WWII. Go Dr. Watson!
  by: eenblanke   10/18/2007 04:18 AM     
  Pointing out the obvious clearly  
Some really want to look into this, not as a racist thing, but as a real matter...okay then:
Well, some say that he may not be a racist or a supremest, but the facts are baseless,and I'm pretty sure that a scientist knows to do his/her research before making claims. If he isn't a racist, then he would of studied blacks, whites, asians, and all others, but he decided to focus on, in his mind, whites superiority to blacks, and blacks only. If this guy believes in evolution, then he may also think this, because in the evolution world, blacks have not fully evolved from apes as fast have white people have, and that's why blacks have a darker skin color, therefore the brain hasn't evolved fully. For the slavery part, black kings sold their own slaves to the people buying them in Africa, so really the first slave master was black, except he was in Africa, and were in America now( they just decided to keep it going for 400 years more, until people started standing up for what's right.) Also, people would kidnap the people in Africa for slavery. And blacks were not the only people to be enslaved, other countries have their forms too. Africa was just a quicker route for them.
On the link it says that he wants to treat everyone equally, but blacks aren't human enough to be treated as one. And also there's not even that many African americans in America compared to Caucasians. It's like comparing 1 person of one kind to 10 people people of another kind. He's a Supremest.
Also in the link he I came to the conclusion that he doesn't believe in being homosexual, because not only does he think that people are born gay, but that women should also have the right to abort them if they think so.
Sound familiar?
( I hate N******, Jews, and Gays!)
A racist.
  by:   10/18/2007 06:46 AM     
  -Dedolito probabily has..  
..the most knowledge out of all of us here. Genetically they might have a stroke against them(brain capacity, ability to learn). Environmentally they have a huge stroke against them, Africa is not as civlized as the Americas. I'm not sure if I'm using the right word here.

@ Tetsuru Uzuki
I don't like to be politically correct either and I shouldn't have to be, but that is how society is. and well, you're part of society
Freedom of speech? nah no body likes the truth but a spade is a spade right?
How come you are so extreme, I've read many of your opinions and you seem quiet angry
  by: JayWar   10/18/2007 07:18 AM     
I think the operative word here is "intelligence". I remember reading about a white guy that went and stayed with a "primitive" tribe in Africa. After a few weeks he realized he was jepordizing their lives. They were so attuned to nature and how to survive that it made him feel like an idiot. He was a huge albatross around the tribe's neck...but THEY never complained. In their definition of "intelligence" he was an idiot! With your inferior sense of smell, hearing and taste can you just imagine what your dog thinks of your "intelligence" behind your back?
  by: Huguenot   10/18/2007 09:58 AM     
  World politics distilled into a teacup.  
Does it matter who's smarter? Bigger? faster? You're all playing petty fears out.

Blacks worried feeling of oppression will return and so compensate.
Whites worried everything will be lost ever since playing field has been evened.

I'm not belittling either fears. It's our own personal crosses, just try to bear it.

Of course when we get a little more understanding between the races, some f***er's going to say: "we won". When that happend, it's the responsibility of their own family to strangle that troll at birth.
  by: redstain   10/18/2007 10:41 AM     
Some are discrediting the scientist because he also thinks that parents should have the choice to abort homosexuals, when many parents would actually agree with this.
Most parents naturally desire to eventually be doting grandparents and continue their family life, and what is wrong with that if the choice was available?
  by: Logika   10/18/2007 04:10 PM     
  @Logika: wrong thread  
That's nice dear. I've just brought a little bit of sanity to this flame war. So .. this is your first post right Logica? I'm sorry if you reached the thread late. But your comment has already been covered - the discussion followed the full arc - and settled on a tie.

I'm sure if you actually read through the threads that it's been covered. From the accusations of 'Dark Age-ery' to Free Speech to a suprisingly reflective one by AE.

But if you have any new ideas, please feel free to post.
  by: redstain   10/18/2007 05:01 PM     
  Political correctness...  
Sigh you know what - in this day and age we are afraid to say anything no matter how much we may believe it simply because it may upset someone. Here is an example - I could say that I doubt Jesus Christ or Mohammed ever existed. Oh wait I cant say the latter, I must upset a Muslim!

What I am getting at is that if you look at the current situation in the world and if you take out situations where some individuals are clearly more intelligent than the norm of their ethniticity, are you telling me that from an outsider point of view, blacks are generally as intelligent as everyone else?

Wait OMG my above statements are prejudiced, Im racist, Im evil. Welcome to 2007, I cant even come remotely to mentioning an idea without being shot down in flames.

Im not racist, I believe we are all brothers and sisters of the world, I do. But give me a break, honest to God - you're simply lying to me if you are telling me that the majority of what you see doesnt make you wonder whether there is differences of intelligence clearly for the average joe of an ethniticity. Whether its gang warfare, an affiity to and limit at certain things, if you are telling me you dont see trends, you really are a person pushing for world peace.

Except this scientist is trying to tackle an issue of whether on this front we are equal at all. If we are not capable of even having a discussion on this because people are going to be upset, we really are screwed. Want to know what I think? It seems to be that black people tend to be physically stronger on a more natural level than everyone else but on an average scale, yes I said it, they may be a little more limited on an intellectual level. And I am entitled to what I think, and no I am still saying we are all 'equal' because intelligence is not the end all or beall of it, hence I surely am not racist nor have I ever uttered a racial slur.

We are screwed with this all anyway (see article about how Arnie has banned the use of the words 'mom' and 'dad' in schools in california). But lets just keep on going our merry way.
  by: VSwift   10/18/2007 05:26 PM     
  Let me add..  
I am a firm believer that intelligence is 50% environment 50% inherited and with most black people not having the right environment at all, they are going to be severel disadvantaged.

If they had the same rights and chances as others you'd see a big difference. But not only are they not but I see a hesitancy for change from their side too (as someone pointed out above). You may want to say its not their fault but claiming there is no difference is going too far.
  by: VSwift   10/18/2007 05:29 PM     
  What an idiotic statement  
You could do a study that showed that white people are twice as likely to have IQs over 100 than black people are, and it still wouldn't prove this man's claims, which are wholly unprovable and based on faulty reasoning.

Even if today's black and white populations show significant differences with regards to genetically-conferred intellectual abilities, it is rendered a moot point by the fact of natural selection -- a population's gene pool will gradually change over generations in response to environmental pressures.

Fifty years ago, you could kill 90 percent of a horde of locusts with a dusting of DDT. Now you wouldn't kill 10 percent of a horde with DDT, but they're still locusts, right?

Similarly, if an event wiped out all but the 90th percentile intelligence-wise of the world black population, you'd find that, a few generations from now, black people would be among the smartest in the world. And they'd still be considered black people.
  by: l´anglais     10/18/2007 06:37 PM     
  Another point  
We've had comments that things like rap, "bling-bling," grills, etc. are somehow indicative of lower intelligence. That's a purely subjective judgement. What makes wearing a smoking jacket more intellectual than wearing a grill? What makes a purple leather seat "dumber" than a brown cloth seat? Nothing but cultural bias.
  by: l´anglais     10/18/2007 06:42 PM     
  @GoldTeeth @Rhinestone  
Mind you, there are certain aspects of both cultures the seem a little over-the-top.
  by: redstain   10/18/2007 07:09 PM     
"Except this scientist is trying to tackle an issue of whether on this front we are equal at all. If we are not capable of even having a discussion on this because people are going to be upset, we really are screwed."


No, he's not. He's an old man who spouts vitrol against gays, minorities, and women whenever he manages to grab some spotlight.

I wish you people would look Watson's biography up or something before assuming he's an active scientest doing research. The man hasn't seen the inside of a lab in 20 years, or run an experiment in 30. Because of the importance of his actual work (back in 1953) he's held a number of honorary "project-lead" positions wherein he sits around and looks at the work that the scurrying masses below him carry out. For the last 20 years he's been working consolidating info for the human genome project, not doing studies on intelligence or fitness.

Just because someone is (was) a scientest doesn't mean they are legitamate experts in fields outside their area of training.

Watson did some good work (and stole some really good work), in the 1950s. He made his breakthru, got his name in the history books. But that doesn't mean he's a certified population geneticist or can speak to the genetic traits of race and intelligence.
  by: dedolito     10/18/2007 07:12 PM     
Just because it was said out of ignorance does not exclude it from being true however.

I do not really research these things, but if there was a study done that proved there were no differences between different ethnicities apart from colour and culture then I think I would have heard about it.

I seriously think it is worth looking into and would help us understand how we developed.

I would really love to know how humans as a race are developing. Because I assume if we did not move between countries then eventually we would develop into different sub-species of human. Has this already started to a degree? Or are we actually more moving into one species the more we integrate?

Some very interesting research could be done on the back of what this man said.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   10/18/2007 07:26 PM     
Speaking in terms of IQ atleast, whites consistently score higher than blacks and tests conducted by government, military and educational units over the last 60 or more years have proven this. Poverty? Nope, these results have remained consistent even when testing lower-lass whites vs. middle and upper-class blacks.

Deal with it.
  by: rippler2k3   10/18/2007 08:03 PM     
Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt.

Studies looking at intelligence weighted by race, economic status, geography, nutrition, parental availability, education level, familial education levels, etc. have been done, ad naseum, for the last century and more.

At best, the only conclusion that has been reached is that people that come from relativly stable homes (in terms of parents, household income, etc) consistantly (but not universally) do better intellectually then those that come from unstable homes (single/no parents, poor, etc).

That's it, end of story. Poor white people coming from homes equivalent to poor blacks do equivalently poorly on intelligence tests. Likewise, MIddle-class blacks do equivalently to middle-class whites on intelligence tests.

When it comes to developing intellect, environment is almost always the strongest determining factor.
  by: Dedolito     10/18/2007 08:20 PM     
  Some people whish..  
That whenever someone said a comment, that it wouldn't be taken to offense, but be looked at with an open mind.
Sorry buddy, Real racists, and people out here do and say things to intentionally hurt people, strike a low blow, and mess it all up for people who say things intended otherwise, for the people who want to say something and not offend anyone...well, that's life, get used to it, and step into the world of reality. That's why!
If you can actually get rid of them (in your dreams) then maybe people would actually look at this in a scientific manner and not a racists manner.
But either way, scientific or not...he's racist.
  by:   10/18/2007 08:34 PM     
I think if Mr. Watson reads all these threads...he would label everyone here a genetically inferior retard. Mr. Watson is simply an old grumpy man. The man is senile.
  by: stpaul000   10/18/2007 09:00 PM     
Not racist, its sciencs... just like how men are better drivers than women
  by: FatherCampbell   10/18/2007 11:01 PM     
  This guy is obviously  
an idiot with out comparison.

What a stupid thing to say!
  by: keanu1982     10/18/2007 11:16 PM     
  A link

"IQ differences are real, but do they matter?
The evidence is that IQ, as conventionally measured, does differ between racial groups. Many studies have shown differences of about 15 points between the mean scores of white and black groups, and some have shown that Chinese and Japanese groups score higher still."

" Amazing how getting a noble doesn't stop someone from being a total P***K...."

Oh yes, telling the truth makes you a prick
  by: AnsweringQuestions     10/18/2007 11:21 PM     

Do you even know what Godwin's law is about?


Well said Dedo!
  by: StarShadow     10/18/2007 11:23 PM     
  The Truth  
- even scientists can be stupid.

  by: theironboard     10/18/2007 11:24 PM     
  The link I provided  
Is actualy a very good take on the matter.

In short, what this man has said is absolutly true.
Denying it is foolish, the facts are there.

"All people deserve equal treatment. But that is not quite 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. That is racism."

In my opinion, it, quite rightly, puts paid to the claims that there are fewer black senior managers due to racism.
However, it is in no way justification for denying black people senior management posistions.

If that doesnt make sense someone PM me, I'm knackerd
  by: AnsweringQuestions     10/18/2007 11:25 PM     
  What he is doing is...  
Basically wanting to put a restraint on African Americans mind.
It's just like telling a child, you'll never get anywhere in life, no little brat or boy ever does.
Even if it statistic that a little brat will not got anywhere in life, you don't whish that upon them. And not only that, he is an individual, and you don't classify someone as being inferior, just becasue he/she belongs to a certain group of people.
Also, it's like you want African Americans to beleive that they will never be smarter than outside of their race.
This is all based on statistics, so this can't be true, becasue statistics are never fully carried out, and only based on what is the now, and not what is the individual.
So what you have a group of black people, or white people, or whoever people that chose not to further themselves in education, that doesn't mean it's a generic trait in them. It's their freaking choice what they want to do, and only represents themselves, and not everyone.
This reminds me of Hitler's followers, because of what one nasty thought of one person of a certain race, they didn't like the whole race, for no darn reason.
If a white person robs me today, should I go about thinking all white people are thieves, or vice versa for black people?
Or how would you like it if I said people who chat on the computer are dumber than people who have a life?
Not true for everyone? Eh?
  by:   10/18/2007 11:57 PM     

I would note that the article you cite doesn’t even attempt to address the issue it itself brings up –

“the conventional measurement of IQ is heavily culture-dependent. A test developed originally to measure the intelligence of Caucasians may not be fair to those whose cultural heritage is different.
Some tests do contain biases that may disadvantage people, either on the basis of culture or, indeed, socio-economic status. When the scores are corrected for wealth and social position, the gaps narrow. “
Which is the predominant problem with IQ tests being administered to individuals of 3rd world nations or are otherwise impoverished.
The development of the mind to it’s full capacity takes a lot of effort and time. If you have to worry about survival and not exercising your noggin, you won’t fully develop. Claiming that race has anything to do with it is absurd, especially given if you trace the lowest scoring ethnic group, Sub-Sahara Africans, and trace the IQ of blacks in progressively more advanced societies you go from severely deficient (African bush) to indistinguishable (1st world nations where blacks are fully integrated) from the native population.
Same racial and genetic history, vastly different average IQs. There are two key observations people like Watson ignore when they make their racist statements:
1. The more Westernized a society, the better individuals score on IQ tests.
2. The less impoverished a society, the better individuals score on IQ tests.
And that is all there is to it. Poor white people from poor nations do just as poorly on IQ tests as the blacks do. Blacks that can take full advantage of the education systems of advanced 1st world nations do just as well on IQ tests as their white (or asian or whatever) peers.
It’s the same reason asians typically score higher on IQ tests than whites from equivalent nations – in asia, school is much more highly emphasized than it is in the anglo-West. During their formative years, most 1st world asians are put through a meat grinder of an education, unlike anything we have in the anglo-West. Their environment, not their genetics, develop their brains to a higher potential than whites, on average, achieve.
Watson and others like him want to blame genetics, but the data does not fully support their claims. The studies that they use to prop up their arguments to not weight the results to account for social or economic status because one you do so, their pet theories fall flat.
There is no doubt that the average IQ of American blacks is lower than the average white American, and the resultant social and economic repercussions Watson and those like him highlight do indeed occur. But they want to blame the genetics, not the environment, and ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary in doing so.
  by: Dedolito     10/19/2007 12:02 AM     
I'm never really angry, I don't know why I come off that way. I'm very opinionated I'll admit, and the way I come accross may be due to the fact that I study debating and how to get your point accross. You have to take an authoritative stance to make a point properly. If you met me in person you'd probably find me quite different. The stuff that makes me angry is the stuff I don't comment on. I often get into heated debates though because alot of people on here are very bias and not open to debate. I am always willing to argue and listen to someone elses point. If you haven't noticed all my views and arguements save the religous ones are based on Libertarian values that teach against laws that make consentual activities illegal when they are essentially victimless crimes. In this case I'm not angry, but just trying to point out that this is a fact, and regardless if whose feelings it hurts you have to treat it as what it is. There are numerous studies that sugjest this to be true. Which is why I'm willing to concede this to be true. Keep in mind that I also do not believe in evolution, so I am personally hesitant to believe this in the first place. I just find it astonishing people want to ignore facts and call science racism. Mr. Watson is in no way racist, he even speaks out about racism. What he did was make a scientific statement based on data he has analyzed over the years. Just because he said that, and in perhaps a non-politically correct way people get so upset. Upset people cause incorrect views on reality that implant untrue ideas into peoples minds who are aposed to scientific study that go againsts their personal beliefs. Maybe if we had voice comments I'd seem less angry about it though. Untill then I'm perfectly content on coming off angry. It might spark more debate from people with opposite views, which is one of the main reasons I come to short news, to see what the other side of the coin thinks about current news.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     10/19/2007 12:33 AM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
"I just find it astonishing people want to ignore facts and call science racism. "

Because it's not science to blame a race's genetics without actual evidence to back up the claim. Watson can point to no gene mutation, defeciency, or chemical difference in the brains of blacks vs whites to support his claim. He ignores all socio-economic considerations from his assessments. He, in short, has a pre-concieved and racist belief and he supports it in the face of evidence to the countrary.

"What he did was make a scientific statement based on data he has analyzed over the years."

False. Watson is not a population geneticist. He has no qualifications that enable him to make any athoratative claim on this matter. He's been sitting in an office for the last 25 years looking at raw human genome data. No research, no papers published since 1987. The fame he has for co-discovering the structure of DNA enables him to hold public court where he spouts the same anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-gay drivel he has for decades.
  by: Dedolito     10/19/2007 12:45 AM     
more Watson quotes and incidents:

On skin tone and sexual urges:

[Watson] suggested there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. ``That's why you have Latin lovers,'' Watson said. ``You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.''

``Then he launched into this whole thing about the sun and sexual drive,'' added Berkeley graduate student Jill Fuss. She said Watson showed slides of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa.

Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer because of sunlight deprivatio

On fat people:

Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious.

``Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them,'' Watson said.

Since this latest $#!^ storm he's made the following statement:

""To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.

"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.""

Of course lecture halls and public forums have been dropping him like a hot potato since his comments, and since he's doing this tour to promote his new book....

Watson is a sharp guy, even now. But he's also extremely guilty of presenting his personal "musings" as facts even though he knows there isn't any solid evidence to back his claims.

He's gotten more and more outlandish every time I've heard him talk. It's gotten to the point where people just up and leave his lectures rather than listen to the things that come out of his mouth. I think the only reason he hasn't been boo'ed off the stage yet is because of his emminent status within the community for his work 50 years ago.
  by: Dedolito     10/19/2007 01:36 AM     
Its been proven that sex drive is affected by sunlight and cycles of the seasons and moons in females. The same reason people get depressed if they don't get enough sun etc. You body does produce different chemicals in sunlight and darkness as well as during different cycles of the moon. Maybe he has studied this. Since I know about it, it would not be that hard to believe a scientist like Watson hasn't researched the area enough to have an educated opinion about the subject. Your just attacking this man and trying to downplay his knowledge. Also anyone making a statement that attended Berkeley you have to naturally assume is bias and not a credible source. And people are rejecting his appearances because this has become a political issue. It has nothing to do with scientific merit. Perhaps you should do some research on the United States Eugenics program to see more in depth details of scientific studies that confirm what Mr. Watson is saying. Its all been declassified now.
  by: tuesday green   10/19/2007 04:14 AM     
  proper english  
Why is it that the prisons in the United States are filled with black people? Why is it that black people have such a hard time speaking proper english when they attend the same public school system? I frequently listen to black people on ham radio (14.295mhz) and oftentimes it's hard to understand their english. Is this because they are not as intelligent as white people? I have long suspected so and I am no scientist.
  by: FuLLTiLT   10/19/2007 05:40 AM     
  Goes from saying  
something very smart like this:

"One of the greatest gifts science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of the supernatural."

To his comment about blacks. Sigh.

To sort of balance a bit:

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) was asked what he thought about the president:
"Well", he said "I really think he shatters the myth of the white supremacy once and for all".

  by: Kaleid   10/19/2007 05:55 AM     
if you think that- your made of stupidity, and have spite or ill feelings.
That's like me saying:
what about those hillbilly's that can't speak a word of English?
And why do they do their sisters, you know that causes deformity and the offspring wont live long.
  by:   10/19/2007 07:41 AM     
  I'm tired of beating a dead horse  
From the people I've met, whose parents were racists or used to be, along with themselves, no matter what you prove to some of them, some still refuse to believe otherwise, nothing in the world could.
So I got a definition to describe some people in here:
Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.
Let's face, stop your excuses and claims and how you don't like rap music because you understand them, and how it's's being racist. Even if you don't think you are, but do believe in that non-science BS, then even believing in that is being racist, so Vual-la, I have exposed you all.....
  by:   10/19/2007 07:48 AM     
  So, is Michael Jackson smart  
or not?
  by: walter3ca   10/19/2007 08:21 AM     
  Racists have always used False Science for support  
Goge (Answering Questions) is defending racism and claiming he's not a racist? Well there's something new.

I find it mighty ironic that the supposed "master race" is the first to fall for this unscientific tripe Watson is spewing, still clinging to it once Dedolito rightly schools you all. Surely a member of a "more intelligent" race would know bullshit when they smell it, no matter how flattering it is to their god complex.

If whites are genetically more intelligent, then shouldn't we listen to the most intelligent of that "race" in the scientific community when they tell us Watson is full of crap? Most of your ridiculous arguments in themselves have shown exactly that.
  by: ManilaRyce     10/19/2007 08:24 AM     
  Evolution 101  
Isolation of a species will invariably lead to diversification. Our isolation by land mas has caused minor variation and adaptation. Even minor isolation can cause massive diversity as Darwin clearly identified and documented in the birds he studied. The largest measurable difference will however be shown falsely by the test given, type of tests used and individuals reviewing test results. The test used was therefore flawed and so were the results of that test. A true test would have measured the variation and adaptions of each variation in the species (we are the same species) The good doctor was flawed in his science and clearly flawed in speaking while citing bad data. Science in however known for large numbers of flawed tests and therefore data collected. Science is sometimes not science at all. The good doctor has shown his bias and possibly his own genetic flaws.
  by: starmutt   10/19/2007 08:44 AM     
  @tuesday green  

“Its been proven that sex drive is affected by sunlight and cycles of the seasons and moons in females.”

You want to cite a source other than astrology fantasy that supports that the lunar cycle has anything to do with a woman’s sex drive?

“ou body does produce different chemicals in sunlight and darkness as well as during different cycles of the moon.”

Very good. Except I challenge you to find *any* correlation between skin pigmentation and sexual promiscuity/libido (which is Watson’s argument).

“Maybe he has studied this.”

He hasn’t. Watson was a biochemist. He’s not an evolutionary biologist, nor a population geneticist, nor a sexual psychiatrist. He’s been sitting in an office for 25 years correlating data reports from a human genome project – mostly his own genome.

“Your just attacking this man and trying to downplay his knowledge. “

His science is faulty. He submits his own personal musings like facts and conveniently ignores data to the contrary. I’ve attended his lectures on multiple occasions and seen him in action, have you?

“lso anyone making a statement that attended Berkeley you have to naturally assume is bias and not a credible source.”

Huh? What does attending UC Berkeley have to do with anything?

“And people are rejecting his appearances because this has become a political issue. It has nothing to do with scientific merit”

I challenge you to go check up on the scientific community forums and blogs. He’s being thoroughly denounced by professionals across the disciplines. The general opinion is we wish he’d shut up and stop misusing his celebrity status to spout whatever is on his mind this week.

“Perhaps you should do some research on the United States Eugenics program to see more in depth details of scientific studies that confirm what Mr. Watson is saying.”

Perhaps you ought to not make assumptions about my credentials. A search for posts made by me on ShortNews will reveal that I’ve brought up the American Eugenics program multiple times. I’m well versed in the topic as I spent a semester researching the movement. Pretty sure I still have the paper around here somewhere.

I’m not sure what you mean by declassified though, the movement was largely funded by private citizens with deep pockets and was a very public affair. Eugenics booths were even set up in county fairs. It was backed by Rockafeller, the Carnegie Institution, movers and shakers of the Californian (and national) government, a bigtime railway owner whose name escapes me currently, and others of high society. Went so far as to having the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the sterilization of a woman found to be mentally incompetent and a drain on society. The opinion was written by an otherwise much respected member of American history – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Buck vs Bell if I remember correctly. Only one justice voted against the sterilization and the opinion had some rather shocking things to say and set a precedent that put the sterilization of American citizens into high gear. Overall it was a very public movement that saw to the sterilization and deportation of thousands. Hell, thanks to these yahoos, Hitler got his ideas about racial purification from us.

And it was all based on junk science. Total fantasy. The researchers presumed they could take any social or behavioral trait found in one person and conclude that the same trait would be propagated into offspring. At best it was Lamarckian genetics. At worst it was a total, bigoted farce.

But don’t take my word for it, go ahead and look up the data that was stored at Cold Springs Harbor. A lot of it is online now. The family trees, the traits they were attempting to trace. It’s all ludicrous.
  by: dedolito     10/19/2007 11:41 AM     
  @FuLLTiLT: another throwaway account  
"Why is it that black people have such a hard time speaking proper english ...[ blah blah ] ... it's hard to understand their english. Is this because they are not as intelligent as white people? I have long suspected so and I am no scientist."

I've been living in England for some time and I've visited Glasgow. I found them to be unintelligible.

Though I'm not sure if you are a bigot, I am certain you *do* open your trap without engaging the brain. So take your throwaway account and start life over again.

Buh-bye now.
  by: redstain   10/19/2007 12:52 PM     
this guy (Watson)has retracted the remark , but wasn't it interesting to see all the racists come running out from the gutter under the "i told you so " flag ...great to see low-life showing their true colours every so often
  by: Hugo Chavez     10/19/2007 01:44 PM     
  If a race is suppressed  
by the majority, how else are you supposed to learn? What blacks learn today in school does not reflect their past!
  by: ukpunk1   10/19/2007 02:51 PM     
White people have an intellectual advantage over black people? Not so, maybe have more access. Being suppressed by a white racist (USA)government/society slows the learning process & accessibility for the minorities.
  by: ukpunk1   10/19/2007 03:04 PM     
These were not racist comments. He also commented on "Latin Lovers". These were scientific observations. It is a shame that factual comments that may be politically incorrect, can cause people to attack someone as racist. I'm white. I'm smart, but not at all athletic like most black folks, I'm not too good at math, like Asians are. Stop jumping on the racist bandwagon.
  by: BikerDude   10/19/2007 03:44 PM     
"It is a shame that factual comments that may be politically incorrect"
Tell me, what makes Dr. watson's comment factual?
  by: ukpunk1   10/19/2007 03:52 PM     
  Scientific Observations  
scientific observations from James Watson,

The scientist has since said that the way the words were presented did not reflect properly his position.

"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have," he said.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.

"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

  by: Hugo Chavez     10/19/2007 04:04 PM give up  
Dr. Watson already retracted his remarks stating, besides the obvious that he was a moron, the fact that even his own scientific research shows there is no science backing up what he said. It is funny to read back all the racist threads here where people state stuff as fact. Even links to Times.Uk of an editorial !! The truth is there is enough scientific research in genetic showing the opposite of what Mr. Watson stated. Especially since the mapping of DNA. Remember, there is more DNA variations found among different white european clusters..than there are between one European group and one African group. The shallowness of humans to be unable to see beyond skin color (perhaps the most insignifican of variations) still amazes me.
  by: stpaul000   10/19/2007 05:41 PM     
  I wonder  
How!? Can anyone except that comment as, truth, or contains any truth to it!?

At moments like this, is when you know the racists amongst us...
  by: isuzu     10/19/2007 06:24 PM     
Its hard to take you serious while your still spitting out propoganda like this. He is a biologist. Just because he doesn't specialize in evolution means nothing, because evolution is a piece of dog fecal matter passed off as a state religion with no proven scientific facts to back it up. As for your disblief in the moon affecting the chemical balance of your body and sexuality. Menses and Sexuality is a good book with a scientific study on it. As for the color of the skin and sexuality, obviously skin color is a direct relation to sunlight. You might want to consult Thomas Schluepfer, the deputy director of the Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychology at the University Hospital in Bonn who has written many books on the subject. Its more directly related to skin color then race based on sun light exposure. For example a white person with a tan is more prone to having a higher sex drive then one without a tan because there body has produced more chemicals to stimulate the desire for sexual encounters. Obviously even today most outside jobs still fall to people of color rather then whites, and they get more sun exposure making the sterotype true that chemically they should have a higher sex drive.

All that said and done

The average White person is smarter. Its not racist to make that statement.
What Mr. Watson is trying to say is you can't help someone if you assume they are as smart as you due to political correctness, when clearly they are not. You have to use a real assumption that they will in fact not be as smart as you, to come up with real results.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     10/19/2007 06:25 PM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
"Its hard to take you serious while your still spitting out propoganda like this"

Who's propaganda? My own personal opinion is propaganda now?

"He is a biologist. Just because he doesn't specialize in evolution means nothing,"

Would you ask a civic engineer to build a nuclear reactor? Would you ask a nuclear engineer to design a new computer chip? Would you ask a computer engieer to plan a city waterwork? Why not, they are all engineers. I trust you understand the point.

"because evolution is a piece of dog fecal matter passed off as a state religion with no proven scientific facts to back it up. "

Your own ignorance doesn't change reality, sorry. Besides which Watson's statements would only reflect microevolution, which most of your ilk have grudgingly come to accept. SO do try again.

"As for the color of the skin and sexuality, obviously skin color is a direct relation to sunlight. "

A black person that has no contact with the sun is still black. Therefore the relationship is not direct.

"For example a white person with a tan is more prone to having a higher sex drive then one without a tan because there body has produced more chemicals to stimulate the desire for sexual encounters"

I would like to see a source for that. The 21 articles Thomas Schlaepfer has his name on do not make such a claim.

"Menses and Sexuality "

Book? It's a 2 page essay by Debora Myers -- a graduate of the "Self Heal School of Herbal Medicine". PArdon me, but what she has has absolutly no grounding in ANY sort of reality.

"The average White person is smarter. Its not racist to make that statement.

It is when you blame the genetics instead of the REAL cause - poverty.
  by: Dedolito     10/19/2007 07:17 PM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
"Its hard to take you serious while your still spitting out propoganda like this"

Who's propaganda? My own personal opinion is propaganda now?

"He is a biologist. Just because he doesn't specialize in evolution means nothing,"

Would you ask a civic engineer to build a nuclear reactor? Would you ask a nuclear engineer to design a new computer chip? Would you ask a computer engieer to plan a city waterwork? Why not, they are all engineers. I trust you understand the point.

"because evolution is a piece of dog fecal matter passed off as a state religion with no proven scientific facts to back it up. "

Your own ignorance doesn't change reality, sorry. Besides which Watson's statements would only reflect microevolution, which most of your ilk have grudgingly come to accept. SO do try again.

"As for the color of the skin and sexuality, obviously skin color is a direct relation to sunlight. "

A black person that has no contact with the sun is still black. Therefore the relationship is not direct.

"For example a white person with a tan is more prone to having a higher sex drive then one without a tan because there body has produced more chemicals to stimulate the desire for sexual encounters"

I would like to see a source for that. The 21 articles Thomas Schlaepfer has his name on do not make such a claim.

"Menses and Sexuality "

Book? It's a 2 page essay by Debora Myers -- a graduate of the "Self Heal School of Herbal Medicine". PArdon me, but what she has has absolutly no grounding in ANY sort of reality.

"The average White person is smarter. Its not racist to make that statement.

It is when you blame the genetics instead of the REAL cause - poverty.
  by: Dedolito     10/20/2007 01:54 AM     
I think that the fact that this scientist was white and
made this statement puts paid to the notion that
"whites are more intelligent"... LOL
  by: Mister crank     10/20/2007 01:50 PM     
Excellently argued. Unfortunately, these points you make to Tetsuru will make no
impact as his / her viewpoint is already too far detached from reality.
  by: Mister crank     10/20/2007 02:00 PM     
  lmao so the DNA is utter crap too  
<delted by admin>
  by: jimmy344   10/20/2007 03:27 PM     
  Friendly warning...  
Tread lightly in this thread. Blantant racism will get you banned and your remarks deleted.
  by: Lurker     10/20/2007 05:44 PM     
  Watson is correct.  
Black people are stupid. Someone name a black Nobel Prize winning physicist...
  by: fordrew11   10/20/2007 10:06 PM     
  "Someone name a black Nobel Prize winner"  
The Nutty Proffessor.
  by: bungholio   10/20/2007 11:47 PM     
though lurker has probably deleted you already, i'll still reply to your idiotic statement as if it were a serious question. the nobel prize isn't just awarded for physics, as one field is not the sole measurer of human intelligence. it is awarded in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, peace, and economics. 11 black people have won nobels since 1950. had you the good sense to do a simple google search, you would have known this before joining the other racists in this thread who also lack evidence to support their claims.

1950 = Dr. Ralph J. Bunche
1960 = Albert John Luthuli
1964 = Martin Luther King Jr
1979 = Sir William Arthur Lewis
1984 = Bishop Desmond Tutu
1986 = Wole Soyinka
1992 = Derek Walcott
1993 = Toni Morrison
1993 = Nelson Mandela
2001 = Kofi Annan
2004 = Wangari Maathai
  by: ManilaRyce     10/21/2007 12:22 AM     
Now, if YOU Mister do a little research (that means going to the library and actually reading a book and not Googling it) The Fields that require the highest degree of human and sometimes superhuman intelligence ARE Physics, Medicine and Chemistry. You don't even know that there is no Nobel prize for mathematics.
Most if not all Nobel prizes for the above fields are actually given to Jews, Japanese and Chinese and European whites. And most of the "blacks" you have sited have got a Nobel Peace prize which doesn't require any intelligence whatsoever. All one has to do like the cursed Mandela is sit in jail for a while, murder a few white people with explosives, sing loudly how "we will kill all the whites" and scream at the top of his lungs "Amandla". And then all u gotta do is partner up with a cunning White politiican and voila u have a Nobel Peace prize! What a f****ing joke.
  by: eenblanke   10/21/2007 02:27 AM     
I'm pleased to meet you. It's 'eenblanke' or 'terreblance' or something?

You know I saw Eugene on TV last year - a broken man. And I was wondering where all the maggots went after thay no longer had hippos to hide behind.

Advice: don't spit at black officers if they catch you committing drive-bys.
  by: redstain   10/21/2007 06:30 AM     
If you are White, redstain, it saddens me to hear you speak like that.I hope you remember the two thousand plus farmers that have been murdered by the thugs in power. If you are not White , thank you for turning my Fatherland into a turd hole. Hope you drown in your own shit, comrade.
  by: eenblanke   10/21/2007 04:25 PM     
thanks kid, but actually i did know there's no nobel prize for math. that's probably why i didn't include that field in my comment. you could've saved yourself a trip to the library and not bothered your mom for a ride.

watching racists trying to convince everyone of their own superiority is rather pathetic. such greatness should be self-evident. ironically, it's always the lowest forms of life which claim to be above everyone else.
  by: ManilaRyce     10/22/2007 02:05 AM     
  The final word  
In the end, all that is proven is that whites scored higher on this particular set of tests as a group; that's all. BTW, Asians scored the higher than either--but I don't want to start a new argument....
  by: bugmenot   10/22/2007 08:21 AM     
What makes standardized tests racist is:

1. Disproportionate (ratio: approx. 30% to 70+%) test failure rates for persons of color and English language learners as compared to white native English speakers.

2. The tests encourage retention which disproportionately effects African-Americans and Latinos. Retention contributes to academic failure rather than to success in school. A single grade retention increases the chances that a student will drop out by 50%. A second retention increases the risk by 90%.

3. Since there is no demonstrable connection between performance on a standardized test and a person’s actual academic achievement, to deny a person access to educational opportunities on the basis of test scores alone is to institutionalize racism.

4. The technology of standardized tests creates and inflates differences that have little or no educational significance. The actual ‘race gap’ in scores is about 10% (range of 8 -15% regardless of the test.) On a 50 item multiple choice test this represents a difference of 2–4 test items.

The Truth About Testing by James Popham

Progressive Educators Network Creating International Liberation

Harold Berlak, Ph.D, Applied Research Center, Oakland, CA

Clears Throat* KaseKlosed
  by: KaseKlosed10   10/23/2007 07:30 PM     
What a rubbish statement! It is quite evident that stupidity is directly proportional to old age. Geneticist my foot. At his age (79), I expect such folly.

Why divide into (white and black) ? and then jump into a preposterous conclusion?

Noble prize winner??? In the world governed by rationality and acute sense of reason, this is unbelieveable!!!

  by: opsy   11/25/2007 11:14 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: