Is Nobelist James Watson, Co-Discoverer of the Structure of DNA, a Racist?
Ronald Bailey | October 16, 2007, 10:21pm
According to the Independent, James Watson said:
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. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, saidit was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". 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". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "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."
For what it's worth, immigrants from Africa seem to get really smart once they move here. In any case, as I have argued before:
No matter who turns out to be right in the nature versus nurture debate over why there is a gap in black/white IQ scores, the idea that we must strive to treat every person as an individual, not as a representative of some group or other, seems right to me.
Whole Independent article here.
tarran | October 16, 2007, 10:55pm | #
I should point out that humans actually have very little genetic diversity. You will find a greater variety of DNA in a single chimpanzee troupe than in the entire human race.
Additionally there is greater diversity of genes within racial groups than between the mean genetic profile of each group. In other words, very little of the variation in genes between two individuals can be predicted by looking at their racial or ethnic background.
Of course, it could be possible that genes that govern intelligence do correlate with race. So what? So long as people's rights are respected, it really won't matter.
I think the good Dr. is completely mistaken about why aid to Africa does not work. Take a look at Scotland. Now, when someone examines all the great English discoveries and inventions in the past three centuries, more often than not, there's a Scot who was the driving force behind it. Thus, we can state with confidence that there are many intelligent Scots. Yet, Scotland has been receiving massive amounts of aid from the British government and is perenially economically depressed.
The problem is quite simply that the foreign aid given to Africans is quite harmful. Unesco encourages and assists dictators in setting up public schooling to control their populations. Arms embargoes leave locals defenseless against predation by hostile tribes who control local governments. Food aid bankrupts local farmers. The bulk of the money for major construction projects are spent on foreign crews, and as often as not when the project is turned over to poorly trained locals, the project deteriorates. Protectionist policies in the West deprive Africans of export markets, while agreeing to support western patents deprives Africans the opportunity to develop manufacturing systems locally.
Africa's problems, of course, are not caused by Western aid. I think most of the problems are, frankly cultural, and are rooted in the endemic barbaric tribalism coupled with institutions brought in by colonial Europeans that were designed to facilitate exploiting the people and natural resources of the continent.
While it is possible that culture can cause a decrease in effective intelligence (just imagine the effect on IQ scores of a society where reading was considered effeminate and men who read alot couldn't find mates). But the potential intelligence encoded in the genes is unaffected.
mnuez | October 17, 2007, 12:56pm | #
The fault, dear Ronnie, is not in our stars but in ourselves. It is EXTRAORDINARILY obvious that the main factor, out of which most other factors flow, for black non-success in our society is genetic.
That being the case, you and all of your libertarian friends have the choice of either choosing to be Nazis or to cease being Free Marketers (capitalized as all religions are).
People don't suffer the ravages of Western Civilizations bottom rungs because they "choose" to live a life of worry, stress and struggle for survival. They live among the dregs because they aren't as "fit" as you to "survive" the Free Market that you worship.
In my opinion therefore they have every natural right to rise up and take from you your status, class and goodies by the force of their brute fists. Your capitalism has resigned them to a world where they live constantly at the edge of despair and they have every right to upturn your applecart.
So, again, racial inequality May be an illusion of mine... but I don't think so.
Of course however race has nothing to do with it. The evil nature of the unregulated free market destroys the souls of less able Japanese people in a racially monolithic society as well. Pygmies are not the only people less able to become top-notch lawyers than is Alan Dershowitz. Lots of Ashkenazi Jews have low intelligence or other personality faults that keep them from attaining "the American dream" as well - and these people are just as likely to suffer the ill effects of the "greed is good" (or was it "God"?) doctrine as is a Birmingham black kid. But the issue of "race" may turn out to be the one that finally shows your type for who you are: people who are simply Lucky enough to be born with the right intellectual goods to succeed in the modern economic system and who justify their success through self-congratulatory claims that "anyone can do it!", meaning that you have what you have because you Deserve it rather than because of luck-of-the-genes.
And who supports you? who props you up? the very people who have the most to lose by it. The believers in the religious doctrine of Racial Tabula Rasa who keep up their laughable patter about how "racism" is what's "keeping the black man down". No doubt this constantly expressed belief improves some people's sense of self-worth by constantly telling them that "your brains are not inferior!" (Or Dumbo Diamond style, "Yali's people are SUPERIOR!") but it serves the one overriding goal of Genetic Meritocracy by allowing the capitalistic system to continue to function as it does.
Cheers Gentle Libertarians ~
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
joe | October 17, 2007, 1:36pm | #
And I'm saying there's nothing wrong with "merit" being the main factor in deciding whether a person of any color is given a position that's supposed to be earned based on merit. And who says that university slots are "supposed to be earned based solely on (academic accomplishment) merit," and not, say, whether the student will best contribute to the univeristy's other goals, such as providing an integreated, diverse learning environment? You?
Also notice you've switched arguments; now, instead of arguing against racism, you're argung against meritocracy. I haven't switched anything, just pointed out that your argugments don't work even by your own terms. Also, I haven't argued against merit, I've pointed out that it is not the only factor to be considered.
But you don't know how the economy might do otherwise. Oh, cripes, not that sad dodge!
Nor do you know (though we can well suspect) how much of those outperforming companies are due to the market in action, versus those companies being less likely to be hassled by the government for having the wrong percentages of races on staff. Since there are no laws against having the wrong % of races, just against discrimination in hiring, we can draw a strong conclusion indeed.
oh, fuck it That's probably the best stance for you to take here.
Seriously, Joe: why are you so terrified at the thought of a society where people are judged on their individual abilities, rather than their group affiliations? I don't. As a matter of fact, the biggest reason I support affirmative action is that I've seen how breaking down segregation can help bring us closer to that socieity.
What is it about the phrase "give the job to the one who's the most qualified" that makes you assume this will result in non-whites getting hurt? Nothing, at all. I just define "qualified" in the same terms as you. If a majority-white college wants to become less monotone, a black students is more qualified to meet their goals than a white one.
Unless you automatically assume that a non-white will be less qualified than a white person. Or unless you aren't making individual judgements about individual candidates, as I've been trying to explain to you, and are trying to accomplish something related to the ethnic breakdown of your employees and students.
As for the discussion we've been having, about affirmative action in colleges, having a passing familiarity with the racial breakdown of SAT scores, AP classes, and other measures of academic achievement does not translate to "automatically assuming" anything about an individual candidate. It means that you can draw a meaningful conclusion about the aggregate academic achievement of your entire black and white applicant population - that is, that black applicants will be under-represented in the upper tiers of applicants.
