Your responses

[DoesntMatter]

One of my best friends here is affiliated with the Cold Spring Harbor Lab (done research etc) and has mentioned to me certain things James Watson has said.

I want to know what your responses are because I feel this is a case where science that liberals have been cheaply using as a tool to bash Christianity is at odds with their utopian agenda. These are just simple, empirical observations. I just want to hear some more bullshit liberal spin

On Africa-

"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really"

On human populations-

"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."

[IndiReloaded]

On Africa-

"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really"

Doesn't mean shit. Noone can measure intelligence in any meaningful way for every society. Its contextual.

On human populations-

"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."

The first sentence is likely true. The second sentence, however, doesn't mean shit, for the reason I stated above. Define "intellectual capacity" and have them arguing for years.

I hate soft science, did I ever mention that before??

[Gigabitch]

Wow. Is he ready to bow to another race should they prove to be smarter than his own?

Human is human. He should stop this because he's embarrassing himself, making himself look like a monster. Is he really suggesting that our social policies should be "adjusted" for data that was collected by white people and based on testing developed by white people?

I disagree, by the way, that our policies are all based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours. Did this guy fail Ethics 101?

[DoesntMatter]

(I'm not responding until I hear what more of you have to say)

[anachronistic]

Intelligence is individual... not cultural. That's almost as bad as the KKK.

[Mish]

I feel this is a case where science that liberals have been cheaply using as a tool to bash Christianity is at odds with their utopian agenda.

Liberals are using Science to bash Christianity at odds with their utopian agenda?

[IndiReloaded]

Liberals are using Science to bash Christianity at odds with their utopian agenda?

Ya, a couple more links in there and we'll have a completely circular argument, I agree.

[bohemiandonut]

Wow. Is he ready to bow to another race should they prove to be smarter than his own?

Human is human. He should stop this because he's embarrassing himself, making himself look like a monster. Is he really suggesting that our social policies should be "adjusted" for data that was collected by white people and based on testing developed by white people?

I disagree, by the way, that our policies are all based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours. Did this guy fail Ethics 101?

Actually, yes, I think he would ("bow," so to speak). His whole point is that objective data is often viewed as bigoted or just plain evil, which hinders scientific progress. HOWEVER, your second point is correct, Giga. "All" of our policies are not based on the assumption of equality. Just some. To counter Watson, since the data on intelligence is so unreliable, perhaps this is a good thing.

But wait, you stumble across an important point here. These days, most policies ARE "adjusted for data that was collected by white people," in the sense that white people are expected to perform better on standardized tests. This is the whole basis of affirmative action. White advantage. If everyone is so equal, then rather than adjust more, we should abandon adjustment altogether.

By the way, from my perspective, this whole 5 dollar footlong deal is the best adjustment in social policy to come around since - actually this pretty much trumps em all.

[IndiReloaded]

Are you sure Prof Watson said those things, tho? Often, these things are taken out of context, DM. Depending on how I read the comments, I can think of at least a couple, quite different interpretations. He may not have been trying to be at all offensive. Even the contrary.

[vashti]

I believe I heard about this, too (or something similar).

In the end, who cares? Would anyone really advocate treating anyone differently, even if true? Not I.

[boobaa]

I don't give a ****.

[Gigabitch]

Well, what about his feeling that it would be a good idea to genetically engineer all girls to be pretty? Anybody have any moral objections to that one?

[boobaa]

Then there wouldn't be the one pretty girl. They would all be the same and men would turn gay due to boredom.

[DoesntMatter]

Hmmmm.... I'm too tired to respond to this anymore, but thanks for sharing your thoughts

[IndiReloaded]

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/25/watson.resigns/index.html[/url]