Op-Ed
In Defense of Dr. Watson
Infomaniacs Anonymous
Infomaniacs Anonymous
.jpg "Infomaniacs Anonymous")
It seems you’re never too old to learn new lessons — at age 79, Nobel Laureate James Watson is learning one that former Harvard president Lawrence Summers knows well: If you have something politically incorrect to say — and wish to keep your job and reputation — you have two options: Shut up or shut up.
The man who co-discovered DNA’s double helix is being lynched over his comments on the uncomfortable topic of race and intelligence. Dr. Watson told the Times of London two weeks ago 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.”
The uproar over Watson’s remarks echoed the controversy at Harvard two years ago, when academic inquisitors crucified then-President Summers for daring to suggest that innate differences between genders might be among the many reasons fewer women succeed at the highest levels of science. It took Summers’ enemies more than a year to force his resignation; it took Watson’s less than two weeks. Five days ago, he retired as director of his Long Island lab.
But that might not be the end of it. Some are calling for Watson to be prosecuted under Britain’s hate-speech laws. A spokesdroid for London’s Science Museum, one of several venues to cancel Watson appearances, parroted the popular sentiment that the scientist had gone “beyond the point of acceptable debate.”
Acceptable debate. Chew on that.
When we deem something acceptable or not, we make a value judgment; science, I’ve always been taught, should be a value-free domain — exactly why religious fundamentalists find it so threatening. I think Harvard’s Steven Pinker had it right during Summersgate, when he responded to accusations that the president had gone too far: “Good grief,” he said, “shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of vigor? … That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.”
Debate may be unnecessary at times, to be sure — when the topic is Holocaust denial, say, or whether there are homosexuals in Iran. But it’s essential when we’ve yet to settle the question at hand — in this case, how to explain the stubborn gaps in average I.Q. seen between whites (100) and blacks (85), not to mention the higher average I.Q.s of Asians (106) and Jews (115)?
Those who believe we’ve solved this puzzle are deluding themselves. Says the American Psychological Association’s 1996 task force on intelligence (led by Cornell’s own Professor Emeritus Ulric Neisser, psychology): “The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status … At present, no one knows what causes this differential.”
Watson’s opinion that the answer lies partly in our DNA isn’t extreme among his peers. In fact, it’s likely the mainstream view if scientific opinion is anything close to what it was in 1987, when a survey of I.Q. experts found that those who attributed the black-white gap partly to genetic differences outnumbered 3-1 those who chalked it up strictly to environmental factors.
From my own layman’s reading of the recent scientific literature, I believe that most — if not all — of the gaps between those of European and African ancestry could be accounted for by obvious historical legacies (poverty, racism, slavery and colonialism among them) and other, less obvious non-genetic explanations (the phenomenon of stereotype threat comes to mind, as do the geographical endowments explored in Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel).
Yet do I categorically dismiss the notion that racial groups who exhibit clear external differences may have small internal differences as well? Absolutely not. If anything, I agree with Watson that “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.”
Wanting something to be true can unduly influence our conclusions. But true scientists resist this temptation. True scientists don’t foreclose avenues of inquiry simply because they fear what they may learn. True scientists form hypotheses, judge them against the facts and revise them as those facts demand. Ideologues, on the other hand, reach their conclusions in advance, seeking the facts that fit their preconceived notions and dismissing those that don’t.
Sometimes the answers at which we arrive are troubling — inconvenient truths, so to speak — and there’s never been a shortage of people seeking to shut up those who challenge society’s dogmas.
Galileo’s heliocentric theory of the cosmos challenged the popular understanding of man as the center of the world. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection challenged the Bible’s creation account and even the notion that an intelligent designer was needed to explain complex life on earth.
Today, regrettably, is no different.
Oil companies seek to undermine the scientific consensus that man is fueling global warming because they don’t want to believe that their actions are endangering the planet. Pro-life activists pretend that embryonic stem-cell research holds no potential because they don’t want to believe that they’re inhibiting the development of cures that could save millions of lives. And the P.C. thought police shout down men like James Watson and Lawrence Summers because they don’t want to believe that we might not be created equal after all.
When I see society sacrificing science at the altar of ideology, I remember the 19th-century woman who responded to Darwin’s theory thusly: “Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray it does not become generally known.”
Must we all imitate this woman and, worse, ostracize those who don’t?
The truth is, I share the popular anxiety over race and science — the two have an uneasy history, to say the least (as the grandchild of three Holocaust survivors, I don’t need anyone to remind me). That said, I can’t think of a case where scientific obscurantism served humanity in the long run.
I hesitated writing this column because, well, I don’t like making enemies. I won’t be surprised today if I find an inbox flooded with hate mail and a mysterious drop in my Facebook friend count. It’s happened before. Oh well ... I guess I’ve never been very good at learning my lesson.
Ben Birnbaum is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bbirnbaum@cornellsun.com. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays this semester.
Sun Podcast
- Artist: Ben Birnbaum
- Title: In Defense of Dr. Watson
- Album: The Cornell Daily Sun - Infomaniacs Anonymous
- Length: 6:47 minutes (6.21 MB)
- Format: Stereo 44kHz 128Kbps (CBR)
Dear Ben Birnbaum, I wanted
Dear Ben Birnbaum,
I wanted to applaud your willingness to write such an article. It had bothered me that the scientific community did not stand up for Dr. Watson's right to speak out. It makes sense that the environmental factors in Africa may not fascilitate brain development as well as the more developed world. However, it is difficult to fully dismiss Dr. Watson's implications in light of some studies on child IQ's. I think allowing him to talk at his planned forum would have been better for the scientific community. This would have at least uncovered his thought process-- racist or legitimate.
Thanks from a frequent Daily Sun reader.
In Defense of Dr. Watson
Your commentary is right on the money. In fact, this article should appear on the Op-Ed page of the "Times", but since it is not politically correct, there is a better chance that you will become the next queeen of Sweden.
In Defense of Dr. Watson
Ben,
I applaud your willingness to tackle this difficult subject openly. That's a sure sign you are indeed a Cornellian! Hopefully you'll receive more illuminating e-mails than hateful ones, and hopefully you'll find that this message falls into the former category. Allow me the liberty of applying Dr. Watson's logic to a different set of racialized stereotypes that broadly disparage Western Europeans. Assume the speaker were a universally lauded African scientist focusing on the falling population rates amongst global citizens of Western European descent....
“all our social policies are based on the fact that their reproductive apparatus and capacity is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
In this light, the ridiculousness of the statement's tenets should be painfully obvious; especially if you could even imagine that at the time of the statement's utterance African socio-economic and cultural hegemony were the order of the day.
Well said!
A very well-put together distillation of the essential facts, issues, and arguments. For those readers curious to find out more, here are some links to summaries of what science can tell us currently:
On race and its genetic interpretation: here
On IQ and its relevance: here
On the heritability of intelligence: here
well-argued. I was hoping
well-argued. I was hoping someone would write this.
Thanks for posting this
Thanks for posting this editorial - it was the most written summary of the situation that I've ever read.
For those interested in the 1996 APA Task Force Report, it's here:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
(it includes people critical of IQ tests as they are traditionally used - like Robert Sternberg)
In Defense of Dr. Watson
My problem with Dr. Watson's statement is not that it was politically incorrect, but that it was factually incorrect. Addressing the claim that "their" intelligence is not the same as "ours," he stated that "all the testing says not really." His contention that his position is supported by "all the testing" is outrageous and untrue, which he admitted in his apology. And because he admittedly knew that his claim was not supported by facts, it is hard to see it as anything other than a racist remark. Should he be criminally prosecuted for his statement? Of course not. Was his comment "beyond the point of acceptable debate"? Though a racist remark is almost never the starting point of valuable debate, we are nevertheless debating Dr. Watson's remark now...
Ben, I acknowledge and appreciate several of the points you make (i.e. the lack of a complete explanation for the differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites). However, I take issue with other assumptions you make, such as your reference to "racial groups who exhibit clear external differences." The clear external differences among "races", the most obvious of which is skin color, are no different than the external differences (such as skin color, hair color, facial features) that exist among individuals and families and which can change dramatically from generation to generation. Moreover, when discussing genetic differences among races, it becomes even more confusing when you suggest that a comparison of "Whites" and "Blacks" (presumably in the U.S.) is analagous to a comparison of Africans and Europeans.
I am not a geneticist, anthropologist or psychologist (as I'm sure is abudantly clear from this post), so I also want to point out the difficulty inherent to discussion of contentious scientific issues by lay people. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to participate in such discussion. And on the other hand, regardless of his credentials, Dr. Watson's statement was admittedly factually unsupported and must be condemned as such.
Good article. The fact is,
Good article. The fact is, I think Cornell is enlightened enough that you will be fine. (I graduated there 8 years ago.) If people don't like you just because you wrote that, you are probably better off without them. The truth is that most smart people, including most who deny it, know deep down that blacks are less intelligent on average than whites. The factors might be in question, but all evidence points to a genetic basis as part of the difference. The only quibble I have with you is the crack on pro-lifers - they do not deny that stem-cell research has POTENTIAL benefits, but they do not believe it is worth going on the slippery slope to making life expendable when other forms of research have more concrete benefits without the same drawbacks. Sure, it's just an embryo...this time.
But the problem is that in
But the problem is that in science you can never start out with all the hard evidence. That is what scientists basically do, gather that evidence. Their starting point is some question, hint or intuition, usually generated by lesser evidence. I think that what Ben (and Dr. Watson, although he phrased it poorly) is suggesting is that, based on the observed average IQ disparities, this is something we should continue to explore. We should see what the hard evidence tells us. Then and only then will we be able to make more concrete conclusions. In other words, we should not "condemn" Dr. Watson, or any other scientist, for making a suggestion of future research without the end results (hard data) of said research already in hand.
The Argument IS Valid
The issue with your argument is that you focus on Dr. Watson's statement as invalid; however, Dr. Watson's statement aside, this is a debate and scientific question that has caught attention in certain circles. When you say: "it becomes even more confusing when you suggest that a comparison of "Whites" and "Blacks" (presumably in the U.S.) is analagous to a comparison of Africans and Europeans" you are not paying attention to the fact that he stated that the IQ test creators say that there is something besides socio-economical factors (in "layman's" terms where you live). What Dr. Watson suggests is that it is genetics (which is why people have a certain color of skin, which is based on where their ancestors were forced to adapt to, which is something you choose to dismiss) and based on the evidence in this article people who identify themselves as "African-American" or some such denomination are scoring lower on the IQ exam than people who identify themselves as "White" (who are in turn scoring lower than people who identify themselves as "Asian" and "Jewish"). If you are going to present the idea that Dr. Watson's facts were not true while the article's author presents facts that show Watson as correct, at least find some facts that prove yourself correct.
Honestly, his comment is not a bigot comment. I detest the idea that people are much better (they may be better in some areas but they are not the best "breed of humanity")than another people because of their culture. European culture was based far more on the intellectual development of a person (after the defeat of the Moors in Spain and the flood of old knowledge, of course). It is startling to me that people can accept the idea that African-American people can be better at sports because of genetics but that white people cannot have higher arithmetic and logic skills. I am, of course, working with generalizations because that is what the debate is about.
Simply dismissing a topic because it is uncomfortable is nonsense. Looking at the author's examples, what made Darwin able to write about evolution was his drive for knowledge, despite the fact that it was uncomfortable. If you enjoy vaccines think about the fact that the first vaccine was invented by a man injecting his newborn child with it and then exposing him to small pox. Would that have been uncomfortable? You would be kidding yourself if you said otherwise. Nonetheless, almost all of our modern benefits come out of the fact that people were willing to look adversity into the eye and challenge it. I would like to hope that Dr. Watson had the same idea and simply because he apologized for it after the fact does not mean that he agrees with his apology in any way. Look at all the scientists who recanted their ideals because of the big bad Catholic Church. Now that power vacuum is filled with the "P.C. thought police".
P.S. Genetics don't randomly shift from generation to generation (genetic flubs do happen, but there is a rhyme and reason to the genetic process), which is why you don't randomly see a person with white skin emerge from a couple with black skin (High School Biology should, I would hope, be considered layman's knowledge). Do believe that someone can have dramatically different external features but that everyone is the same in logical computation and that genetics has no effect on that ability is a naive approach.
'It is startling to me that
'It is startling to me that people can accept the idea that African-American people can be better at sports because of genetics but that white people cannot have higher arithmetic and logic skills. I am, of course, working with generalizations because that is what the debate is about."
What you are forgetting to address is that these people are entirely wrong and their ignorant beliefs do not justify similar beliefs from an acclaimed scientist. It has not been genetically proven that African-Americans are better than sports. The most often-cited example of "African-Americans" being genetically predisposed to long-distance running has proven to be false. When one analyzes the record, you see that it is not African-Americans, but Africans and not Africans but individuals from a certain country in Africa, but not just individuals from this country but individuals from a certain region and within that region only individuals from a certain tribe. The fallacy of extrapolating that into "all African-Americans are better at track" seems to be what Dr. Watson has done.
If we are going to believe that Africans, African-Americans, or blacks (whichever group he referred to) are actually genetically inferior to white people and then further use "evolution" and the disparate treatment of black people over the years as a rationale for their inferiority, then why not go ahead and use the FULL definition of evolution? A subtle change that happens over THOUSANDS of years. Can hundreds of years of slavery REALLY make a whole entire race GENETICALLY inferior? How then does Egypt and the great African civilizations figure into this whole equation? As opposed to surviving and multiplying like evolution would imply, am I to believe that the intellectual black people in history simply died off and left only the stupidest black people behind whose genes mutated so quickly that, before the giraffe could manage to elongate its neck, black people became genetically inferior to white people?
Why can't people look at the obvious correlations and understand the role that white America's imperialism played in the disadvantage of an entire group? Why are we picking certain parts of evolution to cite and ignoring others? (i.e. the necesity for a substantial amount of time to pass by before visible changes can be seen?)
You have flawed arguments in
You have flawed arguments in your statement.
1. Slavery was not mentioned at any point and if you bring that into the equation then you must also pay attention to the fact that slave owners often "bred" their slaves for physical superiority.
2. The comment mentioned the fact that there was an intellectual movement that began in Europe thousands of years before any of that information entered in the majority of Africa.
3. Remove "white superiority", both the comment and the article mention that white scores are beat by Asian and Jewish scores. In said comment it was not mentioned that evolution was the cause but that it was genetics. Human intelligence is not the same as a giraffe elongating its neck, thus that is a faulty point.
4. The previous comments argument was based on generalizations, which is what all of the debate is based on. This was admitted in the comment and should not be called into account for its credibility.
5. Genetic development can be faster then you think and a simple switch between intellectual genes and physical genes are not a huge evolutionary gap.
6. This culture, as mentioned in the comment, would be the reason for the genetic change.
In defence of your race, Ben.
If you are a true Jew,and the grandchild of the Holocust, then I am highly surprise that you of all people will agree with Dr. Jeames Watson views. You should thank the host of Africans that had to fight the terrible wars of world one II to stop people like Dr. Watson from killing your kind; your generation take things for granted and is complacent. I can tell you this...History do repeat itself and I hope if it does, you would paint your hair blond to survive and wear contact lens to hide your eye colour, or do plastic surgery on your nose.
Racism in the Name of Science
I do not know if I can adequately convey how much your article aggravated me.
As a scientist I can tell you that it is very important to postulate the possible implications of your results and also to publish your results only when you are quite confident of the results. An excellent example of someone who took these strides is Charles Darwin; he knew his conclusions were controversial, and he lingered on them for two decades before he published "On the Origin of Species". A counterexample is Alfred Nobel; not until he was called "the merchant of death" in a French newspaper did he reflect on the ethics of his work. He was so appalled by the damage he had done to humanity that he donated 94% of his assets to award those who make humane contributions to science and society.
As was correctly pointed out in the article, the link between race and IQ is not well established. It may be true that Socio-economic differences cannot explain all the variation of the scores, however, it is definitely a dominant factor. The effect of the environment on IQ, in contrast to genetics, is especially strong for impoverished families, as shown by a study by Irving Gottesman. From this study, as well as many other like it, we can make the case that the African continent as well as African minorities in the States as well as others who live in crime and poverty, as human beings with unknown bound for knowledge, deserve equal access to resources and a friendly environment for progress. Many people with resources are obviously reluctant to give them up; which is why they may make lewd claims about scientific evidence for their right to power, luckily the author of the editorial has a knack for spotting such inconvenient truths.
There is a point to be made against broad criticism of peoples from a specific race or religion. I'm incredibly discouraged by the large amount of students at this 'prestigious' university find discrimination tolerable. Especially in the case of the author of the editorial, whose grandparents endured the nightmares of the holocaust only to have their offspring support Watson's claim that some ethnicities are inferior to others. I support the openness of science and its ability to question the status quo, but Watson's claims against Africans as well as Ahmadinejad's claims against the Holocaust made a terrible mockery of the word science and show the desperate need for acceptance of people from different backgrounds.
Bravo Ben!
To anonymous who posted on October 30, 2007 - 8:33pm:
On the contrary. It is the myth of equality that led to such monstrosities as Holocaust and Soviet GULAGS. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union tried to make people equal. And we all know what happened to these two countries.
Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.
Did you seriously...
Just use the metaphor of Watson being "lynched"?! That seems highly and obviously inappropriate considering the rest of the article is a discussion on race. Other than that, whatever. Its your article.
"As a scientist I can tell
"As a scientist I can tell you that it is very important to postulate the possible implications of your results and also to publish your results only when you are quite confident of the results."
As another scientist, I can say that this is not a published result from Dr. Watson. His was simply an offhand comment, based on his intuition. All that he and Ben are suggesting is that perhaps, just maybe, there is a genetic disparity for intelligence since there is clearly one for skin color (and the whole average IQ thing, plus the different selective pressures that existed among the continents.) Of course nobody with a shred of credibility is claiming any kind of scientific consensus, but a few are calling for some research.
Also, people are making all kinds of extrapolations: this genetic disparity (if it is found to exist) will cause certain ethnic groups to be targeted for violence or will cause their educational opportunities to disappear. Why is this automatically the implication? Can the same be said about diagnosing learning disabilities? Knowing more about people genetically is a first step toward helping them. Science gives us the tools to do good or to do evil. Morality and ethics dictate which of these paths we pursue. Science has given us cures for diseases, but also nuclear weapons. This leads us to an age-old debate, better saved for elsewhere...
Finally, the analogy to Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's Holocaust rants is flawed. The evidence for the Holocaust, an historical event, is simply overwhelming. But genetics is a science that is in its infancy. There is currently, to my knowledge, scant data concerning links between intelligence and any genes. We simply are not there yet. But the more rigorous work must always start with fuzzier postulates and intuitions.
You are the true ideologue
Your argument is inherently flawed based on the fact that neither Watson nor Summers were making statements based on evidence from their research. Watson and Summers are not social scientists, anthropologists, or even eugenics making legitimate scientific inquiries about gender/race and intelligence. Summers was an ECONOMIST linking gender and intelligence with no scientific basis. Watson, though a scientist, is NOT involved in any research linking race and intelligence. Both are accomplished men who made off-color remarks based on their own biases and prejudices. In both of their apologies(which you conveniently ommitted) they admitted that there wasn't scientific evidence to support their statements.
There is a difference from making legitimate scientific inquiry and making claims based on cursory knowledge of a subject. The latter is what Watson and Summers have done and what you are attempting to do in this article.
You and your supporters want to believe in your imagined intellectual 'superiority' over women and other races. And in doing so, you make the same mistake you accuse Watson/Summers antagonists of doing. You want something to be true and look for any evidence or lack their of to support your ideology. This painfully clear in your support of these accomplished men who made statements lacking any factual backing.
To disappointed alum
Actually, Larry Summers' comments mentioned only the POSSIBILITY that at the high end, men have more aptitude for math than women on AVERAGE. This statement, according to almost all scientific research, is TRUE. The PC people who complained were feminists and feminist-sympathizers who did not want to hear the truth.
I agree wholeheartedly. The
I agree wholeheartedly. The issue with Watson's comments has nothing to do with his suggestion that some individuals are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than other individuals. That much is well supported by a wealth of data.
The problem is when you start aggregating individuals into ethnic groups, races, religions, geographic locales, etc.
I'm quite comfortable with the statement, "Some dark-skinned people are genetically inferior to some light-skinned people", as I am with the converse, "Some light-skinned people are genetically inferior to some dark-skinned people." Both are true.
However, there is a very clear bias visible when someone generalizes those notions based on statistical correlations from IQ tests, which are in any case extremely difficult if not completely invalid when compared across societies.
Scientists vs. Public
Re: Your argument is inherently flawed based on the fact that neither Watson nor Summers were making statements based on evidence from their research.
Are you implying that world renown scientists only know their narrow field and that they are not widely read in other areas. Are you also implying that a scientist should narrow their comments on the evidence obtained strictly from their own research? So, for example, anytime scientists state that earth is round, they could only do so if they personally researched this phenomenon. And in all other interviews and commentaries, when they use consensual views in the field, they are also obligated to provide foot notes with sources and tables and lists?
Both Watson and Summers stated only what was widely known in intelligence research and genetics. They weren’t referring to some obscure ideas. You will be hard pressed to find any intelligence researcher who could counter Watson or Summers. Yet, what the public knows and has assimilated as scientific theory is too old, maybe by twenty years in comparison to what is a widely accepted consensus among scientists. (And please, don’t drag in Gould, Kamin, and Lewontin).
For reference, look at American Psychological Association's Task force’s conclusion in their 1995 report in response to The Bell Curve:
-
“The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (but specifically not population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction.” (quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ)
A Basic Question, If You Will
Perhaps this question is highly muddle-minded and pedestrian of me; however, I will ask it nonetheless. It seems to me that the very basis of everyone's argument here-- Mr. Watson's, Mr. Birmbaum's, and the majoirty of those who have posted-- is that "race" both exists and is founded on clear and meaningful criteria. Mr. Birmbaum, for example, makes reference to types of humans he labels as "whites," "blacks," "Asians," and "Jews." I may be the only one asking this question, but I would welcome anyone who reads this post to provide me with a sound answer: what exactly is race, how many are there, and what are their defining criteria?
In Mr. Birmbaum's examples above, he uses the clearest example I have seen to date in shifting criteria. To use his categories, it would seem that the criteria for black v. white is skin colors, but in including "Asians," the criteria shifts to geographic locales (as the majority of the classical race-ist physical markers will no longer suffice for distinction). Finally, in adding "Jews," the criteria shifts to the entirely suspect criterion of religions. I wonder what will happen if racial scientists perform a study on the IQ's of light-skinned, Jewish folk who were born in Japan.
I make no claim to expertise as a scientist in any field; however, I feel that it is imperative that anyone making the claim to such a title set forth clear, distinct, objective and meaningful criteria before one goes forth opining on the relative merits and demerits of so-called "races," especially if the given opinions serve only to hand ready ammunition to the preconceived notions of racial supremacists.
Do races exist?
: what exactly is race, how many are there, and what are their defining criteria?
Lookup information on fuzzy sets at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set
The fact that races overlap doesn’t mean that we don’t see them or don’t know what they are. People rarely ask, “Excuse me, sir, are you black?” But the applications at practically all colleges, government jobs, and large company employment do ask this question. It seems to me that when differences are dictated, they become even more prominent than before. Supreme Court Justice Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." And he meant ALL races. For when you give privileges to one people, you take them from another people. To treat an individual on the basis of belonging to a group, any group, is discrimination.
For more information on race, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race (“…The term race describes an ethnic group, tribe, or other set of individuals descended from a common ancestor. It commonly serves to distinguish between populations or groups of people based on different sets of characteristics. ...”
What exactly is race?
"what exactly is race, how many are there, and what are their defining criteria?"
A race is an extended family that is inbred to some extent.
"how many are there"
Asking how many races there are is like asking how many families there are. Nuclear family, extended family, clan, tribe -- the answer depends on how narrowly you focus your inquiry. The narrower the inquiry, the larger the number, and vice versa. Sorting people by using 377 genetic markers yields about a half dozen races.
http://tinyurl.com/3dsjax
"and what are their defining criteria?"
That depends (see above). When people use the term 'race', they are often referring to constellations of mostly associated traits selected in disparate ancestral populations separated at the continental or near-continental scale. In brief, 'race' commonly refers to pre-modern continental ancestry (e.g., "European" and "sub-Saharan African" and "East Asians"). But narrower criteria based on social isolation of long standing are also often used (e.g., "jews").
Excellent article.
You've gracefully done what I think Watson might have been trying to do - open a fair minded discussion on what the results of intelligence tests mean. Well done.
watson
What happened to Watson-- despite the fact that what he said was not well grounded in science--makes me very uncomfortable as a scientist who does study these things (I study the effect of stereotype threat on IQ scores). If we "lynch" or otherwise silence those who even raise the possibility of biological or genetic differences I simply do not see how we can advance the science. And by such extremism, we embolden those who truly believe that genetics explains it all and that everyone else are shrill liberals who can't bear the truth of group differences.
I have always beleieved--and my research continues to show-- that even if If there is some biological basis to the differences this does not mean they are immutable. That culture can widen or narrow the gaps is abundantly clear.
I agree completely with you and applaud your courage in speaking your mind. Your clarity intelliegence and concern for the issue gives me hope that the your generation will do better than mine with racial issues.
Genetics and IQ differences
Concerning whether racial group differences are genetic or environmental, contrary to the opinion of the author, the evidence suggests that genetics is more important than environment. One bit of evidence is the poor intellectual performance of children of upper-middle class blacks. For information on this subject, go to the website of Philippe Rushton, http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm, which contains links to his articles. The 2005 review article by Rushton and Jensen is excellent. For the historical implications of race differences in IQ, see Michael H Hart's recent book "Understanding Human History". Hart, by the way, is a Cornell graduate.
Dr. Watson and the KKK read this!
I would like for all the top educated black scholars from Africa to make up their own version of an IQ test that will be presented to the USA to test only All White American school kids and the same test presented to African school kids ( Not Black American School Kids) and let the results be presented to an international body like the UN to for a final assessment. I can tell you that the result will be very surprising and many eyeballs will roll. Hey! white America has already done their version of an IQ test it is our time to present ours in our own context. Also I really want an international body like the UN to pick top geneticists from around the globe to study which genes among the races has all the genes for high IQ, Creativity, Physical Prowess, the ability to adapt and withstand diseases and let these geneticists present their findings to the international body. This is the only way this whole ideal of which race is superior than the rest, will be put to rest, then the whole world will eventually know who the real superior race is. Period!
Hey! my argument is based on the notion that Whites intellects are superior than blacks, and that it is appalling to know that diseases such as heart attack and obesity is now a black sickness. I wonder why aids only attack people who have melanin in their bodies and not whites with no melanins. Did Watson and his crew engineer this Virus? Hope the Chinese and other races who have melanin in their skin are listening or reading this.
Too bad...
Your argument would make a lot more sense if their was actually a genetic marker for race (hint: there's NOT). There are more intra-racial genetic differences then there are inter-racial. Sorry. Look for some other "science" to justify your racist beliefs, because on a scientific level, race doesn't even exist.
Questioning "Science"
It's funny how no one in any of these posts, as far as the many I have read have questioned *what kind* of knowledge IQ measures. Nor have people questioned *science* itself. There seems to be some inherent belief that what Watson said is (or is not) scientific, and that if we do (or do not) listen to science, than it means that he is right (or wrong) or whatever. Knowledge, understanding, and comprehension of the world come in many forms. Perhaps historically Eurocentric measurements and standards of knowledge fail to capture how other cultures' worldviews may have different foundations than what we, in a Western university system may consider to be "science" or "intelligence". For example, the development of knowledge through a variety of senses and forms, not simply the written or the visual, like we have in lectures at Cornell. This is not a relativist argument, just a note on the fact that nobody seems to question the idea that *science* is somehow objective and tells us exactly what reality is or is not.
Perhaps the "other factors" besides environment and class could be culture, cultures that stress other aspects of interaction with people and environment that don't necessarily get measured in through IQ tests.
SCIENTIFIC
Ben,
I agree with most of the generalities you write, but you make several specific errors. It would take long to scrutinize them all, suffice to say that yes, scientific debate should know no boundaries, but no, Dr Watson's remarks were not part of any scientific debate, nor based on any kind of sound scientific results. The IQ (nowadays an almost useless measure of intelectual abilities - though still used, like the polygraph or the electroshock therapy) Vs racial background distribution was fundamentally flawed by socio-demographic confounders, so it cannot be taken as serious world-wide inquiry on this issue. One way of doing this would be to take tests on every single country with a balanced racial distribution, correct for social factors and educational background and even then we would have some problems....The ideal would be to raise 20 black with 20 white kids (mixed up) equally (same place, same people, same everything...)and make different intelectual ability tests at several ages, controlling for innate tendencies (arts, engineering, etc..). Any other way, we would be (poorly) studying nothing more than the influence of socio-demographic factors on proficiency in IQ tests.
Further, Watson "illustrated" his comments with the unfortunate "anyone who worked with black employees (not people, not peers, not colaborators,....employees...)....is this science?
Do not forget that the man in question was the same who said some degree of anti-semitism is justified. Is this based on any scientific evidence as well?
Cheers
Miguel
A white guy trying to justify his racist beliefs with science...
Dear Jewish Hitler,
If you hate black people why don't you just come out and say it. Then you can get the help you need. It's a good thing your picture is plastered on this article so that everyone on campus will know who the racist is. Maybe you're not even racist, maybe you're the type of person who just jumps on any bandwagon that is labeled science, kind of like the German people who believed Hitler when he said that there are genetic inferior markers for all Jewish people. But no, I think that you'd still be racist because your first encounter with Watson's conclusion was satisfying enough for you to accept. Would you act the same way if it was somehow proven(even if falsely) that Jewish people have large noses. Oh wait that was proven and oh yeah a third of your ancestors were killed because of that. Harsh, well that's how you sound to the ears of all Black people who have read this article. Racist, harsh, apathetic, and very misinformed. There is not even a genetic marker to determine race. Did ya know that? I guess Watson forgot to include that in his study, and with race being a big part of it makes his study false.
It's funny how racist people on this campus hide behind article in the Daily Sun to voice their opinion. None have actually taken advantage of the numerous Black people here to confront and express their views to. I would like for you to explain your views to my face, one on one, and then maybe I'd consider the fact that I am dumber than you. But that would never happen because you don't really understand the study, you just know that you don't like Black people.
Anecdotal Size vs. Sample Size
Re: maybe I'd consider the fact that I am dumber than you. But that would never happen because you don't really understand the study, you just know that you don't like Black people.
Let's suppose that Ben is dull and you're incredibly smart. Or the reverse. What does it prove? Nothing. No one is speaking of individual people. Each person could be smart, dull, and anything in between. You can't prove anything with a sample size of two. But you can go on to earn a Nobel Prize with your future research. We'll all cheer for you.
Second, if you say that races do not exist, how would Ben recognize that you are Black?
And please don't invoke Hitler when talking about genetics. Hitler discontinued IQ tests when he realized that ethnic Germans weren't the highest IQ people in Germany. If not genetics, Hitler would have found another reason to kill off the competition of ethnic Germans in Germany and in other European countries where ethnic Germans were the dominant market minority.
I'd like to share a piece of my philosophy with you: the best revenge is living well.
What Watson said and why he is being shunned
Watson just came out and said to reporters that all white people shouldn't employ any black person because blacks are stupid.
Isn't that -not only stereotypically racist but- against the law? The fact that it isn't a statement based on scientific fact or supported by the scientific community adds to it's stupidity.
Now his lab no longer wants to employ him. That's their right. They have real issues to focus on (research, funding, etc...) and they don't need a bigot messing up their image.
Watson stepped outside scientific debate and into stupid racist ramblings. He deserves all the media attention he has gotten. It's not like anyone misquoted him.
Offhand Remark of Watson
Dear African,
I am as offended as you are by his comments in regards to his bad luck hiring black employees. People have private prejudices and they voice them among friends. He had given this particular comment to his supposed friend while they were driving. It was not a public statement; it was a private sentiment about his experience expressed in private. Unfortunately for all involved it got out. And for that he should have apologized. And he has. He is certainly not a saint.
Great analysis
Ben,
Excellent article. Thank you for being brave. You are a true journalist.
I am so glad that this column will follow you forever.
This is the most ridiculous and self-serving column I have ever read.
I don't find it at all curious that you believe jewish males have the highest potentiality, genetically speaking, for achievement.
You're supposed to stroke your ego in private.
What a useless column
Most people who pen such columns tend to be ignorami who have never met an African. No researcher, tourist, educator or anyone else who has visited Africa will leave with the conclusion that Africans have lower intelligence. They may be more laid back. May be led by corrupt leaders and so forth.
Dr Watson says the west should change the way it deals with Africa. What he conveniently forgets to mention is that most African despots have been propped up and supported by some western power. Starting in the 60s, bribe money under the guise of foreign aid was sent to Africa to prop up despots like Addi Amin and Mobutu. Why would western nations send money to such despots and expect it to benefit the natives ? The answer is simple such "aid" money was never meant to benefit the people but meant to give westen compnaies mining rights. Now African nations are stuck paying back these debts.
In any case most people do not realize that today, the average GDP growth rate for sub saharan African nations is close to 7%. These kind of facts are never reported in the media.
And did you know that African immigrants are the most educated immigrant group both in the UK and the USA
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detai...
http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/235/217/
Ben, look at this review of
Ben, look at this review of the literature on the Black-White IQ gap by psychologist Richard Nisbett: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Nisbett-commentary-on-30yea.... His work indicates that there is no reason to suspect that the gap is even partially genetic.
But I agree with you that scientific knowledge should not be suppressed for the sake of "ideology". In fact, I think American society and the world in general are currently in danger because people are ignoring data out of emotion. There is an avalanche of evidence that the Israel Lobby, led by AIPAC, is trying to push this country into a catastrophic conflict with Iran. There is also much data indicating that the Lobby was responsible for the invasion of Iraq, which as you know has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. For the factual support, I refer you to The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt. I worry that too many concerned and socially conscious Americans are ignoring the real forces driving the American government's brutality in the Middle East for reasons of political-correctness.
greater responsibility for famous scientists
Dr. Watson, having gleaned fame from his book, Nobel prize, etc, is in a position to make a large impact with his words - which is why he should be more socially responsible and choose to perpetuate views on genetics that are at least reasonably accurate. This heightened responsibility is the cost of fame. If he were able to defend his position with conclusive data - wouldn't he still have a job? I dislike political correctness as a job requirement as much as anyone, but this is a case of disseminating misinformation and perpetuating bigotist beliefs - tainting the face of science - not political correctness.
Also I caution you from thinking that mainstream agreement can corroborate anything. You said "In fact, it’s likely the mainstream view if scientific opinion is anything close to what it was in 1987, when a survey of I.Q. experts found that those who attributed the black-white gap partly to genetic differences outnumbered 3-1 those who chalked it up strictly to environmental factors." Two points: mainstream scientists in the U.S. are European white males, and consensus doesn't prove anything scientifically.
In Defense of Dr. Watson
Don’t think too highly of yourself for this article, Ben, you basically cowered with the more or less standard obligatory wimp-out :
“I believe that most — if not all — of the gaps between those of European and African ancestry could be accounted for by obvious historical legacies (poverty, racism, slavery and colonialism among them) and other …”,
when you just quoted (without dissent) the APA assertion that the racial IQ gap does not simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. And do you think slavery over 140 years ago and long past African colonialism is really weighing down the black IQ these days? Pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa consisted of warring Stone & Bronze Age tribes (large & small) who took slaves themselves and never developed a written language even in the total absence of white racism.
So you’re right that the esteemed Dr. Watson is being lynched for saying that Africans (no doubt meaning sub-Saharan black Africans) are less intelligent that Europeans (probably thinking of average IQ) but come on, you could have said the obvious: that no one really believes otherwise, no one. It’s just that people feel they have only those two options you mentioned.
Please stay on topic. And
Please stay on topic. And while we're off topic, please cite some or any of these data that AIPAC caused us to go to war with Iraq and is trying to do so again with Iran. Also, Ben, could you post Jeff Purcell's email about this article, just for laughs? Any from Laura Taylor?
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
"And do you think slavery
"And do you think slavery over 140 years ago and long past African colonialism is really weighing down the black IQ these days? "
It's hardly "long-past," thank you very much. Many of the effects of slavery and colonialism are still being felt today. Systemic racism didn't magically end in the 1800's contrary to what you might think.
"Pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa consisted of warring Stone & Bronze Age tribes (large & small) who took slaves themselves and never developed a written language even in the total absence of white racism."
I wasn't aware that an emphasis on oral history (as opposed to a written one) was a sign of lacking intelligence. As for slavery, you would agree then that intelligence between whites and blacks must be equal, since they both practiced slavery after all.
"that no one really believes otherwise, no one. It’s just that people feel they have only those two options you mentioned."
Are you serious? Maybe no one in your personal circle believes otherwise, but I'd like to think that your group of friends don't represent humanity as a whole. Perhaps I'm too optimistic.
Harmon's NYT article
Hello all,
I came across a relevant NYT article, entitled "In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice" by Amy Harmon. Below is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?hp
James Watson
Ben:
For the most part, I followed you.
Right up to the gratuitious global warming consensus blather.
Then you lost me.