• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

sarahbell

elementary my dear watson

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

What a shame

We are an intelligent animal and it is a shame we can't study and debate all aspects of oursleves like we would any other creature, and be criticised or supported for our views and research, without being stripped of respect for previous endeavours like a punishment.

Not sure I have got that right, but I know what I mean :)

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dgul said:

It is a strange anti-science.

  • Watson says something, claims he's got evidence to back him up.  
  • 'World' says no and excommunicates with him.  No attempt to engage in discussion, no attempt to disprove the claims.

See, as a scientist I find this disturbing.  Not because he is right and is being destroyed, nor because he's wrong or anything.  But because I want to believe he is wrong, but the inability of 'the world' to refute the claims in a calm and robust manner suggests that something is up.  Of course, he might well be wrong -- but then the decision of 'the world' to just tell me 'there there, he's wrong, don't worry about the details' is incredibly dangerous, and then makes me look at other stuff where I'm also not being told the details (and it's patronising -- but that's a nuance).  I am capable of reading scientific stuff -- all they've got to do is give me the references (and make them open-access while they're at it).  But no -- these are so-called scientists* shouting at me and telling me not to think bad thoughts.

Anyway, I'm not sure that it matters -- or, rather, I'm not sure that society actually needs it to matter (deep down).  I'm a white guy and I clearly have a genetic disadvantage when it comes to track and field.  But I don't worry about it -- I'm me, not some representative of whiteness -- I work and get a bit of an income, try to get some exercise daily, try to be nice to the kids, etc -- the fact that some white people don't do that isn't relevant to me.

I have to say -- every black/African person I know is bright and hard working, often more so than me; their IQ and work ethic doesn't care about any racial averages even if they are different (or not).

[* I don't believe they're scientists.  Scientists don't care about such things -- they're more interested in Drosophila genes, or magnetic permeability, or neutron stars blowing up, or whatever is their thing.  I believe these activist scientists are the failed scientists that I thought were morons when I was an academic]

Why do you want to believe he is wrong?

It would be interesting if he is right or wrong. Free debate and study is needed to get there. The first question of course is, what is intelligence?, and I'd imagine that is very dependent upon what survival in the local environment requires. There are plenty of genetic differences between subpopulations of Homo sapiens that are accepted and in some cases where it is life threatening not to know and accept them, so why is intelligence such a pariah to debate? That's what I don't understand, why is the question as to whether subpopulations differ in intelligence so heretical? Heck, not all subpopulations of white or all subpopulations of blacks might have equivalent intelligence. It's not even as simple as black and white, it's far more interesting.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Why do you want to believe he is wrong?

It would be interesting of he is right or wrong. Free debate and study is needed to get there. The first question of course is what is intelligence, and I'd imagine that is very dependent upon what survival in the local environment requires. There are plenty of genetic differences between subpopulations of Homo sapiens that are accepted and in some cases where it is life threatening not to know and accept them, so why is intelligence such a pariah to debate? That's what I don't understand, why is the question as to whether subpopulations differ in intelligence so heretical? Heck, not all subpopulations of white or all subpopulations of blacks might have equivalent intelligence. It's not even as simple as black and white, it's far more interesting.

Yes, exactly, what does it matter if he is right?

What does it matter if someone does a study and finds that black people have better protection against UV? Or that white people on average have lower muscle density? Or that the average height of a Chinese person is lower than that of a US person? What does it matter if a study finds that only women have a womb?

It doesn't make anyone less of a person. They will still have the same rights. They will still be people. Are we not being told that we should celebrate diversity? Why not have a diverse range of IQ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, null; said:

Yes, exactly, what does it matter if he is right?

What does it matter if someone does a study and finds that black people have better protection against UV? Or that white people on average have lower muscle density? Or that the average height of a Chinese person is lower than that of a US person? What does it matter if a study finds that only women have a womb?

It doesn't make anyone less of a person. They will still have the same rights. They will still be people. Are we not being told that we should celebrate diversity? Why not have a diverse range of IQ?

I think it could be simply because white man invented the IQ test as a measure of intelligence and therefore that judges people to their fitness for a developed world and white  society. It is the IQ test that is useless. The IQ test is like just assessing all people by the 100m sprint, only certain people will win at it .However not winning the 100m sprint doesn't mean you are a failure, you might be best at something else, like the 100m breast stroke

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

I think it could be simply because white man invented the IQ test as a measure of intelligence and therefore that judges people to their fitness for a developed world and white  society. It is the IQ test that is useless. The IQ test is like just assessing all people by the 100m sprint, only certain people will win at it .However not winning the 100m sprint doesn't mean you are a failure, you might be best at something else, like the 100m breast stroke

This.

 

And we all know why it is a VERBOTEN subject - because it logically implies that human populations are not interchangable, which in turn logically means that countries have a very very defendable position for preferential treatment of certain human populations for migration.  and THAT threatens globalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wherebee said:

This.

 

And we all know why it is a VERBOTEN subject - because it logically implies that human populations are not interchangable, which in turn logically means that countries have a very very defendable position for preferential treatment of certain human populations for migration.  and THAT threatens globalisation.

Bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

I think it could be simply because white man invented the IQ test as a measure of intelligence and therefore that judges people to their fitness for a developed world and white  society. It is the IQ test that is useless. The IQ test is like just assessing all people by the 100m sprint, only certain people will win at it .However not winning the 100m sprint doesn't mean you are a failure, you might be best at something else, like the 100m breast stroke

Why do we even need to assess intelligence? It's not as if it can be changed? Isn't it better to work with what you have rather than trying to be something you aren't?

Perhaps its better to assess people for a specific job or task? This could be based on, for example, physcial abiltiy, memory, problem solving or empahty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, null; said:

Why do we even need to assess intelligence? It's not as if it can be changed? Isn't it better to work with what you have rather than trying to be something you aren't?

Perhaps its better to assess people for a specific job or task? This could be based on, for example, physcial abiltiy, memory, problem solving or empahty.

some jobs require a certain intelligence and this needs to be appraised before wasting time and money on training

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, null; said:

Why do we even need to assess intelligence? It's not as if it can be changed? Isn't it better to work with what you have rather than trying to be something you aren't?

Perhaps its better to assess people for a specific job or task? This could be based on, for example, physcial abiltiy, memory, problem solving or empahty.

I think the question is interesting, but it's very difficult to determine 'what is someone's intelligence' because it is set apriori by the person setting the questions.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hopeful said:

I think the question is intersting, but it's very difficult to determine 'what is intelligence' because it is set apriori by the person setting the questions.

true, but that's like saying you can't measure who's the best sprinter because the people that set up the race have chosen to test 100 meters (and not, say, 101.37 meters).  It's still a fair test of differences between individuals and populations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Why do you want to believe he is wrong?

It would be interesting if he is right or wrong. Free debate and study is needed to get there. The first question of course is, what is intelligence?, and I'd imagine that is very dependent upon what survival in the local environment requires. There are plenty of genetic differences between subpopulations of Homo sapiens that are accepted and in some cases where it is life threatening not to know and accept them, so why is intelligence such a pariah to debate? That's what I don't understand, why is the question as to whether subpopulations differ in intelligence so heretical? Heck, not all subpopulations of white or all subpopulations of blacks might have equivalent intelligence. It's not even as simple as black and white, it's far more interesting.

Because it simplifies the world enormously.  However, my longing for a simple world doesn't influence it at all -- it'll be what it is, whatever I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

Because it simplifies the world enormously.  However, my longing for a simple world doesn't influence it at all -- it'll be what it is, whatever I think.

A simple world would be boring :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wherebee said:

true, but that's like saying you can't measure who's the best sprinter because the people that set up the race have chosen to test 100 meters (and not, say, 101.37 meters).  It's still a fair test of differences between individuals and populations...

Well, black people are the best sprinters at 100m

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dr. Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL"

 "…the statements he made … are completely and utterly incompatible with our mission, values, and policies, and require the severing of any remaining vestiges of his involvement."

 "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory respects and upholds the rights, abilities, and potential of all human beings."

 [Watson's] remarks were "unsubstantiated and reckless".

Doesn’t sound a lot like science to me.

 

Edited by DocH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DocH said:

"Dr. Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL"

 "…the statements he made … are completely and utterly incompatible with our mission, values, and policies, and require the severing of any remaining vestiges of his involvement."

 "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory respects and upholds the rights, abilities, and potential of all human beings."

 [Watson's] remarks were "unsubstantiated and reckless".

Doesn’t sound a lot like science to me.

 

That is not incompatible with Watson's comments, so what is the problem ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgul said:

It is a strange anti-science.

  • Watson says something, claims he's got evidence to back him up.  
  • 'World' says no and excommunicates with him.  No attempt to engage in discussion, no attempt to disprove the claims.

See, as a scientist I find this disturbing.  Not because he is right and is being destroyed, nor because he's wrong or anything.  But because I want to believe he is wrong, but the inability of 'the world' to refute the claims in a calm and robust manner suggests that something is up.  Of course, he might well be wrong -- but then the decision of 'the world' to just tell me 'there there, he's wrong, don't worry about the details' is incredibly dangerous, and then makes me look at other stuff where I'm also not being told the details (and it's patronising -- but that's a nuance).  I am capable of reading scientific stuff -- all they've got to do is give me the references (and make them open-access while they're at it).  But no -- these are so-called scientists* shouting at me and telling me not to think bad thoughts.

 

I was geneticist back in the day and share your idealistic dream of a debate informed by data.

I can only imagine the reviewers' comments if someone submitted a grant application to answer this very question! It simply wouldn't get funded, for all the wrong reasons.

As an aside, I imagine it's problematic to use IQ as a measure of intelligence in studies comparing intelligence between widely different cultures.  Without going in to too much detail, accurate phenotype data is a prerequisite for robust genetic studies and I suspect the link between IQ and intelligence between cultures is rather weaker than the link within cultures.

Disclaimer: Whilst I know something of genetics I know fuck all about IQ calculations so DYOR.

 

Edited by InLikeFlynn
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Carl Fimble
      I saw a clip from the interview which is on ch4 tonight at 10pm, here it is :
      I think Richard Spencer was a bit shit in the clip, I can totally see why he was unsure Gary Younge was the interviewer but the way he dealt with the questions was pretty bad, interested to see the whole interview though.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.