Watson ancestory questions exposes race enigmas

Wait...doesn't this actually prove Watson's point?

What..that he's a racist? There are stupid, ignorant people of all races. We have a problem in this country of "breaking the cycle" where minorities are still, by and large, disenfranchised. We need to find a way where they have the same percentage of rich, poor,'smart' & stupid 'people' as White people, and then we can look past skin color and examine each individual's character. And to be honest, I'd still rather be white & middle class than black & rich in this country, as it's twice as hard on black people in this country.

Races exist. Pure races don't exist.

racists exist. They come in every color. If we can get rid of them, then race really won't matter.

Race is such a stupid term there is one race Human. The sooner people like Watson learn that ethnic background doesn't determine intelligence or anything else about a person capabilities the better off the rest of the world would be

I'm not an expert or famous in any field, but have done research and spent considerable time on the question of human intelligence. The problems is that it, like many other weighty matters is a complex subject not given to easy answers. There's not enough space, time or interest here or to give my full views. Suffice to say I won't dwell on easy knee jerk answers from eugenicists or apologists but there are significant racial and ethnic differences in various measures of intelligence, including IQ. That's just a fact, and to pretend it doesn't exist is just plain wrong. Where I differ from the Bell Curve crowd is that I don't think these differences are permanent or etched in stone. Indeed, some groups known for their higher IQ scores, were at or near the bottom of the list once upon a time. Additionally among groups with lower IQs, females tend to score higher than males, contrary to higher scoring groups, and there seems to be significant problems among lower scoring groups with abstract reasoning. Then there is also the problem of how to measure intelligence in areas that might be described as intangible. As for Watson, I would be surprised to find that 16% of his DNA comes from African ancestors, although I'm not summarily discounting it. It's not surprising that many or most African Americans have a significant minority of European DNA. In the end, this is a complex and difficult subject and people will believe what they are comfortable with, what they are philosphically and politcally compatible with. As for me, I will continue to study this fascinating subject, and not allow myself to be swayed by either camp.

Boy, did they go to some length to try and debunk Watson's silly statement. The question is why?
If his comments were so absurd to begin with-- why did these researchers/journalists even waste time investigating him.
Makes me wonder? Why can't people just respond to his claims, by simply saying: "these are his opinions--and we believe they are totally ungrounded."

LCJ wrote:

Race is such a stupid term there is one race Human. The sooner people like Watson learn that ethnic background doesn't determine intelligence or anything else about a person capabilities the better off the rest of the world would be

So all of the things certain groups seem to be best at, are they figments of our imaginations too? Are they all the result of environmental factors? Are Asians not really better at math? Are blacks not better athletes? Do you have any statistics that show this utopian opinion to be true? If not, I'm going to have to go with what I observe.

Those were not "sad statements", they were rude, insulting, and complete hogwash.

I know the media likes to jump to conclusions but lets face reality here.

First of all it says MAY. It doesn't say anything about HE IS part black. This is because not all "African" genes are from black people. If you recall most of northern Africa was white and Semitic for thousands of years.

Second, I think that Watson would know damn well if he had a Great Grand Parent that was black and especially since hes a bloody geneticist.

This article is lame.

Hang out with blacks sometimes, not Mulatto's. Everyone knows they're stupid and no one argues that they are not. They just argue WHY. Does it really matter?

Robert wrote:

I know the media likes to jump to conclusions but lets face reality here.
First of all it says MAY. It doesn't say anything about HE IS part black. This is because not all "African" genes are from black people. If you recall most of northern Africa was white and Semitic for thousands of years.
Second, I think that Watson would know damn well if he had a Great Grand Parent that was black and especially since hes a bloody geneticist.
This article is lame.
Hang out with blacks sometimes, not Mulatto's. Everyone knows they're stupid and no one argues that they are not. They just argue WHY. Does it really matter?

Semetic means half white half black

Jared wrote:

Races exist. Pure races don't exist.

Races do not exist ... there is one human race that has artificially divided itself into social and cultural groups often based upon skin pigment and geographic and religious commonalities. But, in spite of these surface differences, we are all the same race.

BIG MARK wrote:

<quoted text>
Semetic means half white half black

No it doesn't. Remarks like this remind me of why my teaching career was so brief and unhappy.

I think it is ironic that the same people who argue that we are all the same race are the ones who strongly support affirmative action and other racial preference programs.

From Websters Dictionary
Semitic
Main Entry: 1Se·mit·ic
Pronunciation:\s&#601;- &#712;mi-tik also -&#712;me-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Sem Shem
Date: 1813
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3 : jewish

Southbound wrote:

<quoted text>
So all of the things certain groups seem to be best at, are they figments of our imaginations too? Are they all the result of environmental factors? Are Asians not really better at math? Are blacks not better athletes? Do you have any statistics that show this utopian opinion to be true? If not, I'm going to have to go with what I observe.

i am glad that you have mentioned black athletes. do you know that there was a time in american history when sports-scientists used to believe that blacks lacked some muscles in their legs? a so-called deficiency that would prevent them from becoming good athletes?
do you you want to know why blacks become better athletes? it is the stereotype itself. blacks concentrate on sports because society tell them that's what they naturally good at.
with concentration and excessive practice, one develops mastery.

Robert wrote:

I know the media likes to jump to conclusions but lets face reality here.
First of all it says MAY. It doesn't say anything about HE IS part black. This is because not all "African" genes are from black people. If you recall most of northern Africa was white and Semitic for thousands of years.
Second, I think that Watson would know damn well if he had a Great Grand Parent that was black and especially since hes a bloody geneticist.
This article is lame.
Hang out with blacks sometimes, not Mulatto's. Everyone knows they're stupid and no one argues that they are not. They just argue WHY. Does it really matter?

That squote along prove there are unintellegent people in all races, the only reason tat White has accelerate in education is because they has a tremendous head started as well as better educational oppitunities

bond007: you are totally wrong. Take a closer look at classification. Do you know the difference between a species and a breed? There are no human "sub-species." A lion and a tabby cat cannot procreate. An anaconda and a rattlesnake cannot procreate. Breeds of dogs are not sub-species.

I should have been clearer: all living human beings are of one human sub-species. There are no sub-species divisions among living humans.

All living human beings are of one sub-species: homo sapiens sapiens. All other human sub-species are extinct.

A tiger and a lion can reproduce because they are of the same genus: panthera. Their offspring are sterile because they are not of the same species, just as a mule is sterile. When humans of different races reproduce, their offspring are not sterile. Domestic cats are of a different genus: felix. The woman most known for breeding cats to look like tigers says that because tigers and cats can't reproduce, breeders "have to fake it," meaning try to get the look of a tiger without the genes. Anacondas and rattlesnakes are of different genera, so I don't believe they can reproduce at all. Obviously St. Bernards and great danes can reproduce: they are one species.

Check out "Human taxonomy" on wikipedia.

The point is that I think you are trying to exaggerate the differences between different groups of people by comparing them to different species of animals.