If the truth is taboo, should it be hidden?: Race and intelligence

[TheNoNamedOne]

It is politically correct to take the egalitarian position on intelligence for the human race. After all, if some races are inferior in intellectual ability compared to others, a lot of justification could be raised for targeting them for the gains of others.

Recently the well respected and famous scientist in the area of DNA studies, 79 yr-old James Watson, came out and stated that blacks as a race were less intelligent than caucasions based on their race. It caused an uproar and consequently he backed away on those remarks and apologized for them (was his mind changed or did he do the expedient thing to make the uproar go away?).

But, what if through science and research it is learned that some races do in fact have less intellectual capability than others? Would the risk of abuse of that knowledge be so large that it should therefore be concealed and not reported, or would intellectual honesty of the human and scientific mind oblige scientists to come clean with what they believe the results to accurately show?

A profile of Watson (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_sc/controversial_scientist) in the Sunday Times Magazine of London quoted him as saying that he's "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." ...

Watson's new book also touches on possible racial differences in IQ, though it doesn't go as far as the newspaper interview.

In the book, Watson raises the prospect of discovering genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence.

"...There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," Watson wrote. "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." ...

Several longtime friends of Watson insisted he's not a racist.

"It's hard for me to buy the label `racist' for him," said Victor McElheny, the author of a 2003 biography of Watson, whom he's known for 45 years. "This is someone who has encouraged so many people from so many backgrounds."

So why does he say things that can sound racist? "I really don't know the answer to that," McElheny said.

Biologist and Nobel laureate Phil Sharp at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who's known Watson since 1971, said, "I've never considered Jim a racist. However, Jim likes to use statistics and observations to provoke people, and it is possible that he is provoking people by these comments."

Now, I am not saying Mr. Watson is right, and let's accept that from present research he is in fact wrong, BUT...if indeed some future research, in fact a series of batteries of research, prove that some races are inferrior, be they white, black, yellow, or red, should that knowledge be published and made known to the masses for the sake of knowledge and honesty, or should it be/stay hidden?

[themadscientist]

It is politically correct to take the egalitarian position on intelligence for the human race. After all, if some races are inferior in intellectual ability compared to others, a lot of justification could be raised for targeting them for the gains of others.

Recently the well respected and famous scientist in the area of DNA studies, 79 yr-old James Watson, came out and stated that blacks as a race were less intelligent than caucasions based on their race. It caused an uproar and consequently he backed away on those remarks and apologized for them (was his mind changed or did he do the expedient thing to make the uproar go away?).

But, what if through science and research it is learned that some races do in fact have less intellectual capability than others? Would the risk of abuse of that knowledge be so large that it should therefore be concealed and not reported, or would intellectual honesty of the human and scientific mind oblige scientists to come clean with what they believe the results to accurately show?



Now, I am not saying Mr. Watson is right, and let's accept that from present research he is in fact wrong, BUT...if indeed some future research, in fact a series of batteries of research, prove that some races are inferrior, be they white, black, yellow, or red, should that knowledge be published and made known to the masses for the sake of knowledge and honesty, or should it be/stay hidden?

I can't dance :(

[dk]

If the information is true, it shouldn't be hidden. It's widely accepted that black people are built better for certain sports than white people. Why would it be so harmful if research showed one race had certain advantages over another.

[themadscientist]

If the information is true, it shouldn't be hidden. It's widely accepted that black people are built better for certain sports than white people. Why would it be so harmful if research showed one race had certain advantages over another.
your not seriously asking that question are you?

[themadscientist]

I see no benefit from trying to prove it one way or the other.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I don't think scientific research starts with the premise of "what is the benefit to come from this research," does it? Sure, some may, but that has never been a prerequisite of intellectual curiosity and the search for knowledge. Often, it is only after knowledge has been gained does an idea or purpose for the application of that knowledge comes about.

[themadscientist]

I don't think scientific research starts with the premise of "what is the benefit to come from this research," does it? Sure, some may, but that has never been a prerequisite of intellectual curiosity and the search for knowledge. Often, it is only after knowledge has been gained does an idea or purpose for the application of that knowledge comes about.
That is the problem with geeks in thier labs. They always ask "can we do it", never "should we do it". Find a cure for cancer or a way to keep Rosie Odonnel off my TV, something productive.

[dk]

If you believe every thing you read or information provided by people claiming they are experts then hey it's right:-|
If the research checks out and is validated by other scientists in the field and the source is credible, why disbelieve?
So if someone of an "inferior race" happens to disprove this belief does that make them an exception or a fluke??
Larry Bird was a pretty good basketball player. Compare the number of white people vs. black people in the NBA. Out of the total number of players who have played in the last 50 years, approximately what percent become stars? What percent of the player-base every year make it to the all-star team? And what percent of either of those two groups (stars, all-star team picks) are caucasian?

Is there really any doubt that black people are better at certain sports than other races? Is it possible then that other races could have traits that would make them stronger at certain things than another race? What is the big deal about answering this question?
I think some people are too smart for their own good sometimes!
I think people take things far too seriously sometimes and are too easily offended. I've come to accept that certain races are better built for certain things than caucasians. I do not think that any one factor puts one race over another. Suppose it turns out that Koreans have the highest IQ of all people on this planet. This does not mean that all other races are complete idiots. It merely means that Koreans hold the title for having the highest IQ of all other races in the world. Likewise, caucasions sometimes excel at sports where the majority of players are of another race.

[dk]

your not seriously asking that question are you?
Yes sir, I am. I am not asking whether one race is superior to another. I am asking if it is possible that races are superior in certain traits than another race. There is a big difference.

[themadscientist]

Yes sir, I am. I am not asking whether one race is superior to another. I am asking if it is possible that races are superior in certain traits than another race. There is a big difference.
possible but I maintain it serves little public good to study it.

[dk]

possible but I maintain it serves little public good to study it.
Yep, just like the study of dark matter and tiny black holes. It's done out of curiosity just to find an answer, and occasionally a piece of information is found that benefits society as a whole.

[Fonze]

Well black folks are prone to sickel cell and white folks aren't as are white folks to others. Evolution can prove this guy wrong but who knows in this pc world of today.

[themadscientist]

Yep, just like the study of dark matter and tiny black holes. It's done out of curiosity just to find an answer, and occasionally a piece of information is found that benefits society as a whole.
No, you cannot link those. The study of a black hole has more potential value that quantifying a difference in the learning or physical ability of one race or another. One type curiosity is not necesarily of the same caliber as another. I be curious about how hard I have to kick the neighbor's annoying dog to make it shut up, does that make me a scientist?

[Fonze]

The only benefit I see in this is, if true, change the way you teach certain races and help them out. I'm sure this guy didn't mean all white are smarter than blacks.

[dk]

No, you cannot link those. The study of a black hole has more potential value that quantifying a difference in the learning or physical ability of one race or another. One type curiosity is not necesarily of the same caliber as another. I be curious about how hard I have to kick the neighbor's annoying dog to make it shut up, does that make me a scientist?
You're right, it would mean absolutely nothing to be able to determine whether or not one race had a superior trait than another race. Because it would be impossible, given all of the research we will ever do on DNA to track down what it is about a certain race that gives him it's superior intelligence, strength, compassion, etc and use it as a means to push our species (if we choose to do so) to the next stage. You're right, it would mean nothing. Time would be better spent trying to figure out how to push Nike shoes to the next level to create the ultimate running shoe. Absolutely.

This is just the potential found off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more. Yes, these are all ideas straight out of science fiction that the human race will likely never persue due to questions of morality. But ironically, as this seems useless and pointless to you, the study of dark matter seems useless to me at this point in our technological evolution.

Research is research. If a scientist has a question, even if the answer is only useful for him, it's still useful and should be encouraged. You never know when data that seems to hold no value turns out to have practical value.

[themadscientist]

You're right, it would mean absolutely nothing to be able to determine whether or not one race had a superior trait than another race. Because it would be impossible, given all of the research we will ever do on DNA to track down what it is about a certain race that gives him it's superior intelligence, strength, compassion, etc and use it as a means to push our species (if we choose to do so) to the next stage. You're right, it would mean nothing. Time would be better spent trying to figure out how to push Nike shoes to the next level to create the ultimate running shoe. Absolutely.

This is just the potential found off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.
That gets into genetic manipulation which on the surface has arguable possibility for benefit but when the human element is figured in would result in more harm then good. I prefer to let us evolve naturally rather than cook up human-V2 in a petrie dish. Every time we try to jack with nature we screw up badly. Thusly it would mean something but not a good something. I said nothing about shoes so don't put words in my mouth, a pair of classic chuck taylors do me fine. :thumbup1:

How about instead of trying to prove the Nazi scientists or Jimmy the greek right we spend time learning to repair spinal cord injuries and burn victims, space travel, etc. Man doesn't need to be pushed to another level, we still suck at the one we are on; let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[dk]

I tend to agree with your latest post. My main point is that no research is useless. This is a conclusion I have come to just from being faced with data which, like I said above, appears to have no value but turns out to be useful.

Every time we try to jack with nature we screw up badly.
An example being?

That gets into genetic manipulation which on the surface has arguable possibility for benefit but when the human element is figured in would result in more harm then good.
Another example please. How would it be more harmful?

I said nothing about shoes so don't put words in my mouth, a pair of classic chuck taylors do me fine.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm perfectly satisfied with my two year old pair of Van's. I was making a point that we already put a lot of time and money into something as useless as creating the next best athletic shoe. In comparrison, what's so bad about this kind of research?

How about instead of trying to prove the Nazi scientists
I think this is one of the reasons this is even taboo. I think this is a taboo that we should get over with and find some sort of practical use for this information. I am not advocating creating the ultimate human. I am not advocating creating the ultimate warrior. All I am saying is, if we're already doing a ton of materialistic research, what's wrong with this?

[DougP]

Looks like he didn't mean it.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London.

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

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief," he said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/18/nobel.apology/index.html

[themadscientist]

An example being?

Take the potomac river for instance, where I hail from. We made the river filthy, we propegated hydrilla to consume the pollutants, it fourished and became the new menace. Ready to trust that sort of half-cocked science with your genetic makeup? I aint.


Another example please. How would it be more harmful?

Eugenics during the Nazi regime is one that comes to mind, the breeding of a "master race", essentially what you suggested this could lead to but with sunnier overtones.


I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm perfectly satisfied with my two year old pair of Van's. I was making a point that we already put a lot of time and money into something as useless as creating the next best athletic shoe. In comparrison, what's so bad about this kind of research?

As long as it is private money researching it I don't care. I don't want my tax dollars or institutes of higher learning research dollars going toward making slam dunks easier.


I think this is one of the reasons this is even taboo. I think this is a taboo that we should get over with and find some sort of practical use for this information. I am not advocating creating the ultimate human. I am not advocating creating the ultimate warrior. All I am saying is, if we're already doing a ton of materialistic research, what's wrong with this?
as I stated above. If Nike want to do the research I don't care but public research should be going towards immediate and relavent research.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Looks like he didn't mean it.


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/18/nobel.apology/index.html

Do you really think he didn't mean it, or do you think he is retracting because of the uproar? I mean his writings in his book are just a little less provocative on the matter than what he was quoted by the newspaper.

Furthermore, he has had a history of making these kinds of statements.

I think he believes his conclusions based on his data and observations as a scientists, but knows the political correct thing to do is to retract and let himself be cowed into submission on the point of his beliefs which he feels are the truth of the matter (whether they are or not I have no idea).

Not the first time people have recanted for their beliefs by peer pressure and force. Joan of Ark comes to mind right off the top of my head.

I imagine even today people are persecuted for their beliefs, and as for scientists that comes in the form of having your legacy trashed that you had spent decades building. I think he chose to keep his legacy and abandon his honesty to his beliefs on his research. If that is the case, I find it to be disappointing and speaks ill of modern civilization.

[DougP]

Do you really think he didn't mean it, or do you think he is retracting because of the uproar?

No I don't think he really didn't mean it anymore than I think Miss Universe is going to stop wearing fur. Nobody likes bad publicity and will do/ say what ever they have to to get people off their back.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

No I don't think he really didn't mean it anymore than I think Miss Universe is going to stop wearing fur. Nobody likes bad publicity and will do/ say what ever they have to to get people off their back.:D

lol. Yeah, and then again I don't see how his recanting his words changes his lifestyle or habits. Though that shows the two situations a little different, I do see what you are saying. They just are not a very good comparison side by side.

Now, if he had hired only whites as his lab assistants because he thought they were the most intelligent ones to choose from and then refused to hire another white and made it open for black applicants, then there would be a change in life practices. That would make them a good comparison on that point then.

[DougP]

Either or it is kind of interesting how he said there was no scientific evidence to support such ideas (which he said/ might have meant) So does he believe that there is scientific evidence to support his earlier comments? Does he realize there is no basis for what he said and now wishes to retract his statement(s) because he looks like an ass? Which is it? Quite frankly, if you do have real scientific evidence supporting any theory why back down?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Either or it is kind of interesting how he said there was no scientific evidence to support such ideas (which he said/ might have meant) So does he believe that there is scientific evidence to support his earlier comments? Does he realize there is no basis for what he said and now wishes to retract his statement(s) because he looks like an ass?

I, too, and I think most of us are not sure of what he really believes regarding his comments that caused him trouble. Only he really knows.

Which is it? Quite frankly, if you do have real scientific evidence supporting any theory why back down?

Well, I would imagine he knew that his data would be challenged and it would/could possibly take years for other scientists to validate and reproduce his studies independently to confirm his findings. During that time perhaps he also knew that until he were vindicated he would be trashed. Maybe the thought of that was too painful for him. Maybe he knew that the issue was such a hot potato that conceivably no other scientists would even touch it with studies looking into it to confirm and ultimately agree with him. Perhaps he just did not have the energy and fortitude at this point in his life to fight back on the issue.

These are just some reasons that could explain his actions for recanting, and doing so eventhough he may still believe in his statements which he originally made.

[kombu_kid]

Well, just maybe blacks don't want to hear this type of information, I mean, which race would? It's negative, and it's not exactly what they would want their children to focus in on. "I'm black, I'm inferior, I'll never measure up to the white or asian students". If black students are on the bottom as far as academics, this isn't going to exactly motivate them.

That being said, isn't it kind of hippocritical for blacks to scream bloody murder about this report, and then go ahead and let themselves be accepted into a college while their test scores are much lower than say, another race of student that had higher test scores,(white, asian, latino, whatever) but who was turned away. Hard working asian students have a helluva time getting into the more prestigious Calif. colleges, because people feel they've kind of "overwhelmed" the system with their work ethic.

By the way, I don't give a damn about people who would call me a racist anymore. I've come to the conclusion that we all are, even if you try to fight it. What do you call a black politician who's part of the "Congressional Black Caucus"? Would anyone be surprised if they took a vote and found that, by race, Latinos were the most sympathetic to illegal immigration? Or that more Arabs favor the Palestinians? We need a new term: PRO-RACE RACISTS They don't hate other races, they just do everything in their power to get what they can for theirs, because they think their race is the best. Like Al Sharpton.

One more thing and I think it was mentioned in an earlier post: I wonder if the black community would have made any noise if a study came out saying that no other race could ever out-sprint the average black athlete, because of superior genetic makeup in that area, and it was backed up by data.

Sometimes when I hear people say "you're generalizing!!" I want to say "yeah, not all chinese eat rice and not all men love sex".

[themadscientist]

Well, just maybe blacks don't want to hear this type of information, I mean, which race would? It's negative, and it's not exactly what they would want their children to focus in on. "I'm black, I'm inferior, I'll never measure up to the white or asian students". If black students are on the bottom as far as academics, this isn't going to exactly motivate them.

That being said, isn't it kind of hippocritical for blacks to scream bloody murder about this report, and then go ahead and let themselves be accepted into a college while their test scores are much lower than say, another race of student that had higher test scores,(white, asian, latino, whatever) but who was turned away. Hard working asian students have a helluva time getting into the more prestigious Calif. colleges, because people feel they've kind of "overwhelmed" the system with their work ethic.

By the way, I don't give a damn about people who would call me a racist anymore. I've come to the conclusion that we all are, even if you try to fight it. What do you call a black politician who's part of the "Congressional Black Caucus"? Would anyone be surprised if they took a vote and found that, by race, Latinos were the most sympathetic to illegal immigration? Or that more Arabs favor the Palestinians? We need a new term: PRO-RACE RACISTS They don't hate other races, they just do everything in their power to get what they can for theirs, because they think their race is the best. Like Al Sharpton.

One more thing and I think it was mentioned in an earlier post: I wonder if the black community would have made any noise if a study came out saying that no other race could ever out-sprint the average black athlete, because of superior genetic makeup in that area, and it was backed up by data.

Sometimes when I hear people say "you're generalizing!!" I want to say "yeah, not all chinese eat rice and not all men love sex".

It's not racist or sexist if it is an attack against white men. I'll make sure you get a copy of the memo.

[dk]

But I guess the world I live in considers a person a race,color male or female,rich poor or in-between then a human being!
IMO race matters only it you make it matter and to me it doesn't.........
This is my view as well. I just find the research interesting.

[kombu_kid]

I don't look at the "race" I look at the individual,everyone is capable of accomplishing whatever they set there mind to,which is why when people say the first "--------" to do this or that and people make a big deal about it i just say that individual put their mind to something and did it.

I agree. So, would you say that you are against affirmative action, quotas, or special scholarships/grants based on race?

I am not offended at all I just like to be objective at times,maybe if the tests conducted by these experts included EVERYONE on earth I might have a little less doubts in their findings but until then ............

Doctors don't need 100% testing of a certain race's population to know that they are succeptable to some diseases more than another race.

[DougP]

I always mark other in the race section when filling out forms. :D
What should it matter what race I am. I'm part of the human race and that's all that should matter.l

[kombu_kid]

So you believe that the findings of these tests apply to everyone of a particular "race"?

Aw, hell no, there are no absolutes, you know that. But if a group of doctors came out and said that Samoan women are more likely to have a weight problem and high blood pressure than say, Japanese women, would that be outrageous or so hard to believe? I'd also be willing to bet that the average black male has more natural muscle mass than an average asian male. To me, this is just an everyday common fact, but I know it's not "P.C."

I don't think that you could take a random group of kids and have them follow in Einstein's footsteps, but I DO think that genius can pop up from any unlikely source/family from time to time. Fat parents will most likely have fat kids, and smart parents will most likely have smarter than average kids. That's what I believe. Genetics mean something.

Keep in mind though, I believe that a person's will power can almost move mountains, and what a person lacks in natural ability can many times be made up by sheer will power.