Are Africans less smart?

[Totenkopf]

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

 

Whether Watson is off his rocker or not, should he be allowed, in western society at least, to make these claims w/o fear of being brought up on some kind of charges? Somewhat tangentially, should all hate-crimes legislation be banned, lest free speech rights cease to have any meaning? Afterall, crime is crime, irrespective of the race, gender or creed of the victim.

[adamqd]

I see no need for these sort of things to be said, what if his findings were true? what purpose would they serve but to widen the cultural divide? I can just imagine a group of guys in white coats with clipboards saying "throw the african in the maze lets see how long it takes him to escape"

[Web Rider]

What's freedom of speech of you can't be an ass or say stupid things?

 

hell yes we should be allowed to say this. Even if it's dumb, evidenceless and moronic. Because it will get shot down by everyone who knows better. We don't need all kinds of laws to get us thrown in jail for saying something stupid.

 

EDIT: On the note of hate crimes, yes, they should be done away with. If they did it because the guy was black, it was just malicious forethought. It's not a special crime because they're different colors.

[JediMaster12]

There are limits to the freedom of speech ammendment. If it attempts to incite violence it is severely curtailed. It specifically refers to any language or symbols used to incite a violent reaction. There were actually several Supreme Court cases regarding speech and the restriction attempted to be made.

[SilentScope001]

What's freedom of speech of you can't be an ass or say stupid things?

 

QFT.

 

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

 

Actually, you know what, Watson may very well be right. This is the guy who discovered DNA for crying out loud! Maybe the racists (god forbid) are in fact correct (although they are correct by means of pure coincidence). Let wait for the DNA testing to occur, and more likely than not, Watson will be proven wrong. Besides, there's always a silver lining, once we find the genes that causes intelligence, we'll just inject those very genes into the human race. [if there is inequality within the races, we have the power to now fix it, and we can become artifically equal.]

***

Besides, my teacher says stuff like this all the time, but couch it in terms of "Europeans believe in this stupid policy, and while I understand why they do this policy, well, it's stupid. Yeah. Europeans are stupid." I don't see anyone flaming him though. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that many other professors actually believe in the exact same thing.

[John Galt]

I think framing something as important as intelligence from the perspective of race(which is insanely convoluted and subjective) could produce any number of false positives considering the samples taken. I think we should instead view each person, be they "African," "European," "Asian," "American," or "Australian," as an individual, capable of reason, rather than as a member of whatever racial or ethnic group. Certainly there are dumb Africans, much as there are dumb Europeans, Asians, Americans, and Australian. Ditto for geniuses.

 

Ayn Rand sums it up very well:

 

"A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin."

[Web Rider]

Besides, my teacher says stuff like this all the time, but couch it in terms of "Europeans believe in this stupid policy, and while I understand why they do this policy, well, it's stupid. Yeah. Europeans are stupid." I don't see anyone flaming him though. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that many other professors actually believe in the exact same thing.

 

it's probly because it's considered PC OK to slam white people.

[SilentScope001]

it's probly because it's considered PC OK to slam white people.

 

The guy's white and he's slamming them because of their economic policies.

 

"Welfare system? Unemployment beniefts? Can't get fired? Er...where's the incentive to actually be productive?"

[tk102]

Quite a tactless approach to doing science if you ask me. Yes Dr. Watson has a right to say whatever he wants, but he's not helping to get anything accomplished by making foreign policy commentary based on his theories. He would do much better to remember he is a scientist and focus on finding the genes involved. Whether the frequency of the genes occur in populations in one geographical area or another should be a distant secondary or tertiary concern.

 

On a tangent, I would be not be surprised to hear scientists make a exclamation that they've found "intelligence" genes to usher in the brave, new world that Watson appears to encourage. Nor would I be surprised if attempts to introduce these genes caused detrimental effects in emotions, social skills, or physical health.

[Jvstice]

Watson is an old fraud that often took credit for other people's work anyway. That's why Rosalind Franklin never got any credit during her lifetime even though her work was a lot of what Watson and Crick built their hypothesis on.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

[Corinthian]

It could potentially be true, but I really doubt it. Intelligence fluctuates enough in the individual members of a race that attempts to measure a race's average intelligence is doomed. It doesn't help that a lot of Africans are uneducated, making a fair test effectively impossible.

[lukeiamyourdad]

it's probly because it's considered PC OK to slam white people.

 

There's nothing racist with that. Europeans are hardly a "race". The teacher seems to be talking about policies he finds stupid, which happens to be in vogue in many European countries. I'd hardly call this slamming white people.

 

By the way, this teacher is obviously an idiot.

 

 

 

Back on topic...

 

Dr. Watson can say this if he wants, it doesn't really matter. The guy has a bias about people of different color, women, homosexuals and everything else. He's got a right to think like he does. The problem...as a scientist, he should no better then to base his opinions on stereotypes more then facts. In light of his commentaries, one can highly doubt the results of his next studies could be as objective as humanly possible.

 

I wonder something though. He seems obsessed with black people being stupider then white people. Why hasn't he tried to measure white people to Eastern Asians? Could he fear the result of his methodologically flawed studies actually tell him that those "inferior" people might be smarter then "his" people on average? By the way, I am Asian and suck at math, so no, I'm not saying Asian people are genetically smarter then white people, I'm merely using Watson's "logic".

 

I've met my share idiots of every culture. I've met my share of nice and intelligent people from every culture. Hey, I've met black guys who wrote the most amazing speeches. I've met black guys who are incredible writers. I've met black guys who were among the best political scientists the world has. I've met latinos who were amazing at math. I've met latinos and black guys that were hard workers. I suppose Mr. Watson spends too much time in his all white neighborhood.

 

There's also another issue. Does this encourage racism? It is well known that Nazis used "scientific" arguments to justify cleansing the Jews. Dr. Watson seems to try to use genetics to justify inequities among humans and to try and create a pure white world where women are beautiful because genetics allow it. Funny really, because I wonder if he has a wife. I'd love to see her and slam it in his face the "fact" that she's quite ugly.

[mimartin]

Whether Watson is off his rocker or not, should he be allowed, in western society at least, to make these claims w/o fear of being brought up on some kind of charges?[/Quote]

He should have the right to say whatever he wants and by the same token we should be allowed not to listen. I would tell him to put up or shut up (as in proof). So if groups want to cancel his speaking engagements, then I say more power to them.

 

Somewhat tangentially, should all hate-crimes legislation be banned, lest free speech rights cease to have any meaning? Afterall, crime is crime, irrespective of the race, gender or creed of the victim.

Crime is crime, but crimes done out of hate should be punished more severely than those done out of passion. To me it has more to do with the likelihood the perpetrator will do it again. Therefore, to answer your question, no I do not believe hate-crimes should be banned.

[John Galt]

1. Watson has the right to say anything he wants, and we retain the right to disagree with him.

 

2. Hate crime is no different than any other sort of crime. As long as someone's rights are being unjustly infringed upon, motive is irrelevent.

[Totenkopf]

Crime is crime, but crimes done out of hate should be punished more severely than those done out of passion. To me it has more to do with the likelihood the perpetrator will do it again. Therefore, to answer your question, no I do not believe hate-crimes should be banned.

 

We already have that distinction.....premeditation.

 

@Luke--I think that was actually the conclusion of the guy who did the Bell Curve. Asians placed higher than whites as a group.

[Web Rider]

Crime is crime, but crimes done out of hate should be punished more severely than those done out of passion. To me it has more to do with the likelihood the perpetrator will do it again. Therefore, to answer your question, no I do not believe hate-crimes should be banned.

 

as is said, we already have those. The "hate crimes" in the original question are refering to how crimes against blacks by whites or vice versa are often regarded as "extra bad", or racially motivated. Which of course, depends on the case. Point being, if X white guy kills Y black guy 'cause he hates black people, the crime is looked at a far more serious crime than if X white guy killed Y white guy 'cause he just plain didn't like Mr Y.

 

There's nothing racist with that. Europeans are hardly a "race". The teacher seems to be talking about policies he finds stupid, which happens to be in vogue in many European countries. I'd hardly call this slamming white people.

 

By the way, this teacher is obviously an idiot.

 

The point being, somebody, is slamming all of a culture, or a variety of cultures, which while not "racisim"(since race doesn't exist for that matter), and lumping them all together in the same way that one would slam people of color. Yet he is not getting crap for it like if I were to slam Africans for the things their genocidal warlords do.

 

The guy's white and he's slamming them because of their economic policies.

read above. If I slam black people for generally being poor and having no drive to get out of the ghetto, I would get driven into the ground faster than John Henry can drive steel. That's not to say that I'm incorrect in that this is a bad facet of a generally black culture. Or if I were to rag on the "don't snitch" ideas, I'd get crap for being culturally insensitive.

 

When we get to PC about everything, we lose focus on what we were trying to accomplish in the first place.

 

EDIT:

@Luke--I think that was actually the conclusion of the guy who did the Bell Curve. Asians placed higher than whites as a group.[/Quote]

it's cultural. A 10 miniute study of asian family and societal expectations from those being educated and of educators would explain why this is.

[mimartin]

We already have that distinction.....premeditation.

Not always. What do you call a bunch of drunk rednecks that come upon a homosexual, make fun of him, push him around and then beat him to death? I would not call that premeditation, although this happen a lot when rednecks go out looking to beat up on homosexuals. What is the likely hood that someone with that kind of hate will do it again. Especially after having years of their life taken away from them in prison because they harm a “thing” they consider beneath them.

 

While I agree with you that a crime is a crime as long as people feel the need to hate someone due to their race, sexual orientation, gender or religion/lack of then hate crime laws are a necessary evil.

 

Do you support capital punishment for those that kill a police officers? Why, after all a crime is a crime why should it be any more of a punishment than killing me?

 

as is said, we already have those. The "hate crimes" in the original question are refering to how crimes against blacks by whites or vice versa are often regarded as "extra bad", or racially motivated. Which of course, depends on the case. Point being, if X white guy kills Y black guy 'cause he hates black people, the crime is looked at a far more serious crime than if X white guy killed Y white guy 'cause he just plain didn't like Mr Y.

Somewhat tangentially, should all hate-crimes legislation be banned, lest free speech rights cease to have any meaning? Afterall, crime is crime, irrespective of the race, gender or creed of the victim.

I believe the original question had a little more to do with African Americans and hate crimes could include an African American killing a white or any other race. Intent and the reason behind that intent should be the determining factor in deciding if it is a hate crime. Not all crime against another race, gender, sexual ordination… are hate crimes. Yes, the law is misused, but that does not mean the law is unnecessary. It just means voters should pay more attention to our elected officials.

 

Houston had a problem with it crime lab falsifying information to help the D.A. Does that mean that Houston should get ride of its crime lab?

[Samuel Dravis]

So I guess the testing going on that the good Doctor refers to is not the problem.

 

This leaves his conclusion. Are they less intelligent? He thinks they are. This is a possible conclusion, I suppose, but probably overly simplistic. There are vast differences in culture and education between the West and Africa. As for simply being racially based, African Americans DO test worse on average than some other races. Even so, this also can be attributed to situation and affluence...

 

So while the Doctor may be able to say that black people test less well on average, he can't say they're necessarily less intelligent because that is so. As far as I know, any racial group scoring less well than average can be shown to be about equal to the others in intelligence when external factors are suppressed.

 

The Doctor probably should have known how his remarks would be taken. If this reaction was intentional, then I think he was definitely out of line and he is simply racist. If not intentional, then they were at least ill-advised and he should have considered the reaction before opening his mouth.

[adamqd]

There's nothing racist with that. Europeans are hardly a "race", I'd hardly call this slamming white people.

 

I hope you mean that in the sense that as Europe we consist of many cultures and creeds.

We may have the power to oppress, but we are slammed, left right and center.. and mainly by ourselves!

 

ahh, these threads.

[JediMaster12]

So I guess the testing going on that the good Doctor refers to is not the problem.

 

This leaves his conclusion. Are they less intelligent? He thinks they are. This is a possible conclusion, I suppose, but probably overly simplistic. There are vast differences in culture and education between the West and Africa. As for simply being racially based, African Americans DO test worse on average than some other races. Even so, this also can be attributed to situation and affluence...

This sounds like another craniometry problem to me. Paul Broca tried to say that Africans were less intelligent than white people by saying that big brains were the key. Another incident is the famous measuring of craniums with buckshot. Again it doesn't take into account the fact that people from different regions will differ in size based upon stature and stature has a correlation to environment.

 

So while the Doctor may be able to say that black people test less well on average, he can't say they're necessarily less intelligent because that is so. As far as I know, any racial group scoring less well than average can be shown to be about equal to the others in intelligence when external factors are suppressed.

This is also a dumb thing. This goes back to Yerkes and the whole IQ testing thing. You can't accurately measure intelligence. Besides what are you comparing to in the first place? A native bushman from Africa is not going to care who the second president of the US is or some nonsense like that. He is intelligent in his environment because he knows what he needs to know to survive.

 

The Doctor probably should have known how his remarks would be taken. If this reaction was intentional, then I think he was definitely out of line and he is simply racist. If not intentional, then they were at least ill-advised and he should have considered the reaction before opening his mouth.

You know Watson is not the first man to be revealed as a bigot. Henry Ford, the guy who invented the Model T and perfected the assembly line was the biggest one out there. Yet whe made a contribution that we can't live without: cars.

[Web Rider]

Not always. What do you call a bunch of drunk rednecks that come upon a homosexual, make fun of him, push him around and then beat him to death? I would not call that premeditation, although this happen a lot when rednecks go out looking to beat up on homosexuals. What is the likely hood that someone with that kind of hate will do it again. Especially after having years of their life taken away from them in prison because they harm a “thing” they consider beneath them.

It's a crime of passion. They were intoxicated, which allowed their emotions to get the better of them. Had they been in the right mind, they probly wouldn't have done it, but they didn't really plan it out either, but that's not to say that they didn't desire to do so anway.

 

While I agree with you that a crime is a crime as long as people feel the need to hate someone due to their race, sexual orientation, gender or religion/lack of then hate crime laws are a necessary evil.

If the crime was done out of hate, should not then these laws apply to people who kill their spouses after they have an affair? Well, these laws obviously dont, therefore they're only used in "race-hate" scenarios.

 

Do you support capital punishment for those that kill a police officers? Why, after all a crime is a crime why should it be any more of a punishment than killing me?

no, partially because context is everything. If they just went out and killed a cop, premeditated murder, same as if they killed some random hobo. If the cop was beating their head on the hood of the car, then self defense. Meaning, no crime.

 

I believe the original question had a little more to do with African Americans and hate crimes could include an African American killing a white or any other race. Intent and the reason behind that intent should be the determining factor in deciding if it is a hate crime. Not all crime against another race, gender, sexual ordination… are hate crimes. Yes, the law is misused, but that does not mean the law is unnecessary. It just means voters should pay more attention to our elected officials.

If intent and reason are all that matter, why do we need laws that get people in more trouble if they are a racist?

 

Houston had a problem with it crime lab falsifying information to help the D.A. Does that mean that Houston should get ride of its crime lab?

 

yes, and hire new people. There's nothing wrong with the crime lab, but there's a problem with the people. So the people need to be fired and new ones who aren't going to do that be hired.

[mimartin]

It's a crime of passion. They were intoxicated, which allowed their emotions to get the better of them. Had they been in the right mind, they probly wouldn't have done it, but they didn't really plan it out either, but that's not to say that they didn't desire to do so anway.[/Quote]I don’t think alcohol should ever be a excuse for a crime. Oh, I was drunk so I ran over that child is a real good defenses for vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. If someone can’t hold their alcohol they should not drink. Sorry I used the word drunk, because this happens a lot without drinks or drugs being involved.

 

If the crime was done out of hate, should not then these laws apply to people who kill their spouses after they have an affair?

No, how likely are they to kill their spouse again. The spouse is already dead. Hate crime laws are made to punishment more sever because of likelihood the perpetrator will commit the crime again.

 

Well, these laws obviously dont, therefore they're only used in "race-hate" scenarios. [/Quote] Do you consider sexual preference a race or religious belief a race? If so I would agree with you.

 

No, partially because context is everything. If they just went out and killed a cop, premeditated murder, same as if they killed some random hobo. If the cop was beating their head on the hood of the car, then self defense. Meaning, no crime. [/Quote] Good enough, but the reason if I shot a cop trying to arrest me while I am committing a crime is a capital crime is because if I’m crazy enough to shot a police officer then no one is safe. The same argument could be made for people that commit hate crimes.

 

If intent and reason are all that matter, why do we need laws that get people in more trouble if they are a racist? [/Quote] Jame Byrd Jr. Explain to me how you would tell Mr. Byrd's family this was not a hate crime.

 

While you at it expalin to me how you would tell Paul Broussard's mother that her son's death was not a hate crime.

 

I wish we could do away with hate-crime laws, but without ending racism, sexism and bigotry of all types we can’t (I know bigotry will never end, but it is a dream).

 

While I respect your opinion, you will never convince me that hate-crime laws are not a necessary evil. So I find continuing this debate pointless. I assure you I will read your response, but I will not continue unless you write something that really strikes a nerve. Thank you.

[Samuel Dravis]

This is also a dumb thing. This goes back to Yerkes and the whole IQ testing thing. You can't accurately measure intelligence. Besides what are you comparing to in the first place? A native bushman from Africa is not going to care who the second president of the US is or some nonsense like that. He is intelligent in his environment because he knows what he needs to know to survive.

This is an interesting point, because if we're just interested in seeing who is roughly equal in problem-solving, we don't really have to quantify intelligence. Just give the same problem to people of equivalent backgrounds, and if the results are not equal then there'd be a clear difference in ability. Of course, intelligence is usually said to be a combination of mental activities, including problem solving, so we have to be careful to avoid conflating terms (i.e., intelligence does not only mean problem solving, but also means the totality of memory, perception, problem solving, etc). In order for Dr. Watson to prove his statement, he'd have to show that these faculties are in general less responsive in blacks than other racial groups - something that seems rather difficult, and most likely false.

 

I think the problem with the method the Doctor uses is that he pretty much ignores the external factors that would skew the results. This is kind of strange for a scientist, who should be on guard for this sort of thing all the time, and makes me think he wanted his conclusion more than he wanted understanding.

 

I do agree with your other points, JM.

[Totenkopf]

Well, Web pretty much covered it. But tell me something. Isn't "hate" a passion? Since we have crimes of passion, hate crimes are merely redundant. One man alone cannot commit a genocide (less he have access to a lot of NBC weaponry, I suppose), so his motivation for killing someone breaks down into two basic categories: malice aforethought or heat of the moment. So, if a man robs his victims and then kills them, how is that any less heinous than someone who kills b/c their victims don't share the same race, religion, etc... that he/she does? Both parties, unless locked away, are freely capable of commiting their crimes again.

 

Good enough, but the reason if I shot a cop trying to arrest me while I am committing a crime is a capital crime is because if I’m crazy enough to shot a police officer then no one is safe. The same argument could be made for people that commit hate crimes.

 

Not entirely true, more like a subset of "no one" isn't safe.

 

I think that hate-crimes laws don't address the real problem. The real problem seems to rest in the system itself. For example, a black man who kills another black man may not get as harsh a sentence as if he'd killed a white man. There should be more color blindness (perhaps more justice, period) in the judicial system when it comes to sentencing.

 

Also, have no problem with the death penalty in concept, though its execution needs policing.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I hope you mean that in the sense that as Europe we consist of many cultures and creeds.

We may have the power to oppress, but we are slammed, left right and center.. and mainly by ourselves!

 

ahh, these threads.

 

 

Oh yeah. I know that. Slavs vs. other Slavs, Anglo-Saxons vs. Celts, etc. vs. etc, the two cultures of Belgium...

 

Hell, you probably slam each other more then outsiders slam you.

The problem I had with the teacher is how he put Europeans in one homogeneous mass when it's a much more complicated situation with many conflicting ideologies involved. At any rate, the guy should shut up about things he has very little knowledge about.

 

 

The point being, somebody, is slamming all of a culture, or a variety of cultures, which while not "racisim"(since race doesn't exist for that matter), and lumping them all together in the same way that one would slam people of color. Yet he is not getting crap for it like if I were to slam Africans for the things their genocidal warlords do.

 

 

Well...have you tried slamming Africans in the same way he did with the Europeans?

The main element you seem to forget, is that he's white and slamming white people. Black people can slam black people. Asians can slam Asians. The list goes on. Generally accepted that you can't be a racist against...yourself.

 

Then I wonder if the problem you have with this PC issue stems from a generalized state of things or from anecdotal events. Granted, the PC movement is strong in the US, but that's not the problem, it's how you can sue the crap out of people the second you get "insulted". IMO, the problem is deeper then a PC movement, it's how judges in the US seem to attribute sentences left and right, encouraging morons to sue for personal profit.

 

It's a running gag among people here to laugh at such situations. Whenever someone gets insulted, we check the newspaper to wait for the signs of someone deciding to sue X individual for millions.