Geneticist Says: Genetically, blacks aren't as intelligent. (Update: Now Denies It)

Originally posted by Sharpie

The guy is a Nobel Winning Geneticist for crying out loud.

This isn't going to strengthen your argument much. The Nobel Prize just went to Al Gore, and he definitely doesn't know what he's talking about! These people are more "politically motivated" than "fact-based" on who the award recipients are.

There is always a "discomfort" factor when discussing racial differences. Some people could stare at evidence every day which supports these differences, but they will still choose to NOT see it. Hasn't anyone watched a basketball game lately? Football?

Why is Africa so much less "developed" technologically than other areas of the world? I'm not trying to say that blacks are less intelligent. But no more than American culture encourages American Indians to excel, maybe other contemporary cultures don't encourage the black man to excel in certain areas.

Every race seems to have strengths and weaknesses associated with it, otherwise there wouldn't be so many stereotypes. No matter how hard people try to make this an ideal Utopian world where everyone is equal in everything, its never going to happen. It also makes for a much less interesting world. Football games would be pointless if both teams playing were equal in every way. Try applying that on a much broader scale.

Guys,

Every IQ study says:

Asian > Black > White

Brain size studies say:

Asian > Black > White

Pretty much every objective measure of intelligence we have says:

Asian > Black > White

Note that Asian is oriental.

It's clear that on average Asian > Black > White. That's undesputable looking at the evidence from an objective viewpoint.

To everyone claiming that the races are of equal average intelligence, you are basically making this hypothesis:

"All the races have equal average intelligence."

You need to support that statement. Otherwise, it's groundless and has no merits in reality. Where are your IQ studies and brain size studies to back it up? In reality, there are none; the evidence clearly favors that some races are superior and an objective mind like Watson's must go with that viewpoint.

Note, however, that these are averages and not individual statistics. Applying racism to individuals gets you nowhere because there are black people that are more intelligent than white people. It does explain why blacks as a group will never achieve as much as whites or Asians but that's it.

To prove the above point, I've seen studies that can link IQ with other human traits too like hair color. You'd never see anyone holding someone's hair color against them. If you did, you'd think they might be retarded.

I would much rather marry a black woman with an IQ of 120 over a white woman with an IQ of 100 because I don't believe in applying racism to individuals.

Nothing of the sort has been proven because intelligence is not a quantifiable function. It is not measurable or predictable by genetics or DNA. Indeed IQ tests are only partial cultural measures of intelligence. Too many things including social, cultural and educational exposure determines a person's intelligence for it to be judged by a broad sweep such as race.

reply to post by grover


It's commonly accepted that IQ tests are about 70% genetic and they have a 51% correlation with brain size which is almost 100% genetic if dietary needs are met.

Originally posted by docklands
Its funny how people will deny any evidence shown to them if it doesnt support their very own BIASED views of the world.

Be objective? The guy discover the GENETIC HELIX.

Christ.

The DNA helix was discovered by a WOMAN, Rosalind Franklin. The guys that she worked close to took credit for the idea.

"Not releasing the information on the B form proved to be Franklin’s downfall, for she got bogged down with calculations and obsessed in trying to determine whether the A form was helical. Gosling got so frustrated trying to visualise the geometry of the arcs that oranges were used to simulate the spatial relations of the several curves. Finally on Friday the 18th July, 1952 Rosalind took up her fountain pen and, in capital letters, wrote, on a 3 x 6 inch card with a hand inked black border, a death notice for the DNA helix (Crystalline) which she and Gosling signed; referring only to the A form “crystalline” DNA. Franklin continued to waste most of the winter of 1952 with work on the A form.
....The last part of the puzzle focused on the base pairing and required a thorough knowledge of Chargaff’s rules. Watson and Crick had come to an elementary understanding of Chargaff’s rules the year before, with Crick even arranging a meeting with Chargaff, where he had to admit that he did not even understand the basics, let alone the rules. Franklin was conversant with Chargaff’s rules and so, with all the facts at her fingertips and her superior knowledge of chemistry, it was only a matter of time before she used logic to figure out the last part of the puzzle. In fact she had produced a draft paper, with Gosling, dated the 17th of March, 1953, which outlined that the molecule was a double helix, had specific base pairing and the antiparallel A form, which had not been applied to the B form. Franklin did not realise that Watson and Crick were racing to publish first, which they did on the 18th of March, 1953, so beating her because she had not published.

link article"

Rosalind Franklin died of cancer she got from taking all the x-ray photos.

Scientists are so smart...aren't they. Once they thought men were smarter then women. To my knowlegde there is no genetic evidence of "white" people being more intelligent then "black" people. I couldn' t find anything in the OP article. The people that left Africa once spread there genes all over the world. Asian/Indian/European/Black have the same blueprint, while there can be found more diferences between the several black peoples that still live in Africa. This is one of the reasons that supports the idea that we all come from Africa.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by Pjotr]

Originally posted by Jenna
I read the article looking for the "evidence" that's supposedly shown to us, but I don't see it. All I see is an article about someone's experience writing a book by/about a guy who is stuck in early 1900's. I didn't find anything that "proves" that dark skin = lower intelligence. All I see is some guys opinion that that's how it is.

It's not as simple as skin colour.

I wish scientists can get on with moving our species forward without the bloody straight jacket of political correctness. I don't agree with racism but i don't think this is racism at all.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by dodgygeeza]

reply to post by ccclean


I said my peace.Period.Do I need to re-type what other members have already stated just to get it throught to you?
And for curiosity sake,my post was a response to docklands, obviously one of your hate spreading buddies.Or else you and your "Warriors of truth" so you call yourselves,would not have hit that "foe" button for me unless you felt I had figured you all out.
Take your hate spewing crap elsewhere.
Time for my "IGNORE" button.

reply to post by RedDragon


Thats bull hooey. As the old quip goes if an Australian Aborigine drafted and I.Q. test, all of western civilization would fail it.

Intelligence is not measurable in an absolute way. I have known people (all elderly) who have been illiterate all their lives yet what they had lived through had molded them into very wise people.

You could take a white infant from a Mensa family and raise it in conditions of poverty and deprivation with few viable options to choose from, then test it blind and you would never be able to determine its race from the scores.

This is history repeating itself. The same happend with galileo when he was sentenced to prison for daring to suggest that there was more to the universe than just this planet.

Its mad to assume that all races are the exact same and that it is only skin colour that differs from each race and it stops any scientific progression dead in its tracks. People who insist that each race is the exact same are incredibly brainwashed. Just put your hands over your ears and start singing -- pretend that its all a lie.....

Am I a racist for DARING to say that we are all different? This is no different from the 16th century so called "heratics".

[edit on 18-10-2007 by dodgygeeza]

I remember reading a book by some guy several years back. Basically it stated that there are different intelligences. Theres physical, theres knowledge, and then there is wisdom. He then submitted some info that basically stated African americans had Physical and Knowledge but because of there genetics couldn't absorb wisdom as well. This wasn't to say they are stupid, just that they couldn't garner wisdom as fast as Whites and Orientals. This being said he stated that orientals come back with wisdom as being its superior, and knowledge coming in second. Whites came in with knowledge being superior and wisdom as a second. Mind you, this is all "Pure" race. Any deviation to it brings unexpected results. He then went on to discuss how it was both a genetic disposition, as well as nurturing these traits via there enviroment that brought these traits to fruition. Example being An african tribes man. He doesn't necessarily need to know about the stock market, and finances, but he needs physical abilities to hunt and care for his family. Another example would be an Englishman. Very educated, but does he remember how to hunt? Basically, its been breed out of the majority of the race. Just some thoughts on this subject. I think for the most part I agree with it. As Purely "race" goes I think generally, africans are stronger and faster, whites a more knowledgable, and Orientals are more wise. This beings said, when you mix the 3 different groups, different traits become dominant and recessive, dependent on the environment. Example, African americans gain knowledge quicker the African counterparts. Additionally, Aboriginies tend to be wise, yet lack physical strength. THis being due to Aborigines being african first, but then having a mix of asian into the group throughout the years, then Caucasian later.

Anyway, Just some thoughts. I by no means am degrading the other races, but they do have greater intelligences of there own seperate from knowledge.

Cheers,

Camain

reply to post by grover


That doesn't explain the differences in brain size.

Originally posted by 1337cshacker

Any human is capable of the same intelligence, all humans are capable of a capped intelligence where they cannot be any smarter.

Wrong. No matter how hard a dog tries, it will never be as intelligent as Einstein.

You're limited by the genetic design of your brain. Everyone's brain is designed differently.

Humans all have different intelligence capabilities just as they have different physical capabilities. For example, no matter how hard you try, you will never be 6'3" if you're 5'8".

No matter how hard Asians try, they will never have average heights of 6'1" like in the Netherlands similar to no matter how hard blacks try, they will never have average IQs of 112 like the Japanese.

People are limited by their genetics and genetics differ between races.

This is science, not philosophy.

[edit on 10/18/07 by RedDragon]

[edit on 10/18/07 by RedDragon]

reply to post by TKainZero

DUDE,

You just prooved entire history wrong with your post, claiming that Western society is a society that was based on learning, and technology advances - and on the other hand, Middle Eastern society is a warrior society, with the invention of written word, agriculture, and domestication of animals. Do you have any idea where first doctors came from? First astronomers? I mean, there is far more to Middle East then just some warrior-farmers. And the same goes for Eastern Asia society - a society, which has been around centuries before any peasant in Europe even know what philosophy means. Ever heard of Chinese Empire and when it all started? Did you know that gunpowder was invented by Chinese? I guess they are just societies that had a culture of learning, and agriculture - and let us forget about centuries of history before any European city-states were established and Europe was a bunch of wild hordes and remnants of Roman Empire.

I tend to agree. It's science and it's proven. If you don't believe in science, stop using the computer.

As much as I hate to say it...There is SOME plausablility in the OP.
If you think about it logically, doesn't it make sense that since physical attributes vary greatly between races (e.g - Black/white skin, tall/short stature, epicanthic eyes (Asian)/non-epicanthic (Caucasian), etc) that other characteristics, such as mental capacity or intelligence would differ also?

When I first read the OP it reeked of racism. But upon further reflection of the arguments presented, I began to see the logic.

Isn't it a bit much to suggest that even though we have evolved in extremely different ways physically, that we would be EXACTLY identical in terms of neural structure?

Having said that, in my opinion, I don't think the differences in intellegence, IQ, etc would be noticable at all, let alone measurable.
Anyway, to speak of the intelligence of a race as a whole is quite absurd.
You can say that 'Caucasians are smarter than Asians', but I could just as easily go out and find a genius white man, a complete idiot white man, and the same for two Asian men.

Although the point presented in the op MAY be valid, I don't think it is relevant to our society - it only stands to further perpetuate the already promintate racism in our culture.

Who cares if the genes of an African could SLIGHTLY disadvantage some minute neurological trait, compared to that of a White European? Levels of intelligence range from stupid to genius in both these ethnic groups.

MOVE ON PEOPLE

I'm White and I think that this is NWO, NAZI propoganda. To find out what they have planned for the Black, American Indian, and Jewish races just go to Denver Airport Murals. It's all there is living COLOR.

reply to post by POKEMANS


The problem is that the intelligence differences aren't slight; they're huge. Compare the average Japanese IQ of about 112 to the average sub-saharan African IQ of about 75. Compare what Japan as a small island the size of only a few Rhode Islands has accomplished as a society throughout history and invented compared to the entire continent of sub-Saharan Africa. Compare the average Japanese male cranial capacity of 1472 cc to the average sub-Saharan male african cranial capacity of 1319 CC. The sub-Saharan Africans are even taller and that difference exists that greatly. There are HUGE intellectual differences not really between all the races, but between sub-Saharan Africans and everyone else; Japanese are only slightly more intelligent than caucasians who are only slightly more intelligent than Mexicans who are VASTLY more intelligent than sub-Saharan Africans.

That's why Watson is right- while the rest of the world can advance, Africa will always be stuck in shambles because it's just not capable of competing with the rest of the world, sadly.

In conclusion, the differences between races are about 50% genetic and 50% cultural. source:

www.innovations-report.com...

This is absurd

According to Nobel Prize winner....


One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

Can Watson even objectively demonstrate that the concept of human "races" is anything but a delusion; see right there, there is a fundamental weakness in the premise he is operating from.


The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary.

Another severely flawed thinking on the old man's part; If the so-called "Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts", perhaps Europeans would have negotiated with Africans about sharing resources, and setting up fair trade institutions, rather than going on a rampage of sub-human genocidal policies without familiarizing themselves with the histories of these folks.

Perhaps they would not have accepted to take an equal as a slave either.

Perhaps their so-called scholars would not have gone to great lengths to create fake constructs like Hamites [blackened whites basically], including the laughable refusal to recognize any accomplishment "African" on African soil [e.g. Egypt is in Africa but it isn't African, Great Zimbabwe is in Africa but it isn't Africa, relics of iron and steel furnaces found to date earlier than those in other regions are not the work of Africans, and like wise].

Perhaps they wouldn't have acted the parts of "blacks" in the early days of Hollywood, presumably to say that blacks are intellectually incapable of even acting "black" parts.

Perhaps would have allowed black folks to vote from the onset.

Perhaps would have seen the idiocy of enforcing apartheid in Southern Africa on the land of blacks, and Jim Crow in America.

Does any of this sound like working from the "assumption that blacks were as clever as their white counterparts"? The real question is, whether Watson is *clever enough* to be acquainted with these facts, and still say "yes" to this question.



He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

Well Watson, please enlightened us with the genes that you've found, that support the interesting claim that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites. What is this gene called, found at what site - elaborate on its working and how this working has been tested in the lab; for Watson to make the statement he made, one would have to assume that he knows what this gene is.

What was going on with the genetically intellectually superior whites, when highly organized literate societies were maturing in Africa, the so-called "Near East", Indus Valley, Yellow River Valley and the Americas?

What was going on with the intellectually superior whites, when agriculture was being invented independently in different parts of the world but Europe?

What was going on with the intellectually superior whites, when they claimed to be in the "Dark Age" during the "Medeival" period, and what intellectual enlightment did they have prior to this so-called "Dark Age" to begin with?

Perhaps Watson has answers to these 'starter-questions'.


Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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".

I wonder if Mr. Watson thinks that the so-called Western policies are so defensive...you know, like social-segregations, unfair trade policies, colonial policies, fussing about other countries not creating stockpiles of nuclear arsenals while they continue to stockpile their's and even expand on them, fussing about possibility of over-consumption in emerging markets like say, China, India, South Africa, South Korea, Brazil and so forth threatening the environment while they are the most irresponsibly over-consuming societies with little regard for the environmental consequences, the price of which btw, is felt in so-called Third World countries around the globe, not to mention the Artic region...because they are under the assumption that 'blacks are as clever as their white counterparts', and so, a level playing field would be disadvantageous to "Western" policy makers? Could this be what Watson is talking about, the need to not be so hysterically defensive in world affairs...by assuming that 'blacks' could catch up because they are "as clever as their white counterparts"?


"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.

Likewise...there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved in the sense that one entire continent of "diverse" people is intellectually superior to those of "diverse" people in another...especially when no such evidence has been brought to light. In fact, there is no firm reason to anticipate "diverse" people in continents to all "evolve" in the exact same way - if that were the case, there would be no diversity to speak of to begin with.

I wonder: Does Watson consider South and Southeast Asians, whose students consistently outperform white students in the States and across Europe, as genetically intellectually superior to whites?

Whilst not subscribing to some of the more racist views put forward in this thread, I believe some people here have reacted straight away with the "Arrgh!Racist!" reaction, without actually pondering what is meant by it.

Firstly, the Geneticist saif AFRICA. For the first two pages people were banging on about "African-Americans". Not the same thing people.

Let me explain.

Consider you live in 1750 and you want some slaves. You want the strongest, fittest and most intelligent, after all, you don't want dumb, weak slaves as they take an age to train and make mistakes.

Consider that, over several hundred years, the strongest, fittest and most intelligent of AFRICA's people are taken away.

Doesn't leave a particularly deep gene pool, does it?

Factor in the colonisation and oppression that they endured as well, and Africa is screwed. Their best genes taken away as slaves and anyone else smart or strong enough was probably killed when they stood up for themselves. No education, lack of Healthcare etc takes it's toll as well and before long, you have one pretty crappy continent.

It has been said by Scientists that Africa may take several more centuries to recover it's potential due to the damage caused during History.

Also, if I may, I'd like to point out that the differences between people on earth are more than just skin colour. Anyone who thinks your exactly the same as someone from a different ethnicity aside from skin colour, is a bit of a berk. There are significant differences, some causing diseases only seen in one grouping. There are other physiological differences as well. It wouldn't surprise me if there were differences between the races in cognitive abilities too.

My own opinion leans towards the fact that African's are physically stronger built than whites, on average.

They are also, on average, more creative.

After all, white men can't dance, let alone jump!

But, when you compare the spread of civilisation over the ages, up until the Slave Trade, and you have an Africa almost devoid of advanced civilisation, except for the North, boredering Europe. Most Ancient advanced societies come from Europe or Asia. Considering mankind supposedly sprang from Africa, it does beg the question why they are the last to advance.

Which leads me to my final point.

Consider that, many thousands of years ago, the first humans were competing and spreading. The physically stronger would most likely stay in their area, forcing out the physically weaker people's to pastures new.

What if, at the dawn of humanity, Native Africans were the one's who forced out weaker peoples, who as a survival trait, became more savvy with the use of brains instead of brawn? The native Africans, having survived on strength, were maybe slightly lagging in the brains department? Hence the lack of an advanced culture?

Now, this isn't to say that Blacks are stupid, as I know many who aren't. But they have had the advantage of an education system. One thing I do notice is that every one I work with is noticeably slower in typing and problem solving (I work in a Telecoms Engineering capacity), sometimes to the point of frustration.

Indians too strike me as slow learners, but once they get hold of an idea, they never let go.

Orientals seem to be amazing problem solvers, but very weak physically.

Whites, generally good all rounders, but don't really excel in anything. It's almost a given that whites are the most aggressive people on the planet.

Every race has it's pro's and con's and it shouldn't be taboo to discuss it. After all, the very discussion of such things could help in understanding our origins. If only everyone could get over their attempts to label anyone a racist.

Something to think about, anyway.

I fell into their web of hate in the conspiracy against black people thread. Don't feed this thread with comments, these people are obviously hateful, and demonic in nature. It is from my own personal experience that you get back what you put out. When things in these people lives continue to go wrong and they can't seem to get ahead, hopefully they will realize they are the cause of their misery.

Let's move on and leave these racists behind.