1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nobel Prize winner and DNA discoverer: Whites smarter than blacks

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Big Ragu, Oct 17, 2007.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7050020.stm

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbWwe16Y68vdK7nUgcoOOPzuXuFAD8SB8I281

    Can't believe there hasn't been a thread about this... unless I am missing it. If I did, I am sorry about the DB...

    Dr. James Watson who won the Novel prize and essentially discovered DNA gave an interview in which he said that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

    I am just blown away by this... The guy is a brilliant scientist ... and an absolute dumbfuck ... Is there some kind of genetic explanation for how that can possibly be?
     
  2. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    'Yab has no idea why he just had an orgasm.
     
  3. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    Sounds like the guy's a certifiable nut:
     
  4. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Lord knows there's plenty of bad science on the issue of race and IQ, going back decades. A quick overview of same:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

    And there's plenty of evidence that brilliance in one area doesn't guarantee anything of the sort in another. That a 79-year-old white Brit - even a Nobel scientist - doesn't think the woman behind the counter at Costa gets him his coffee fast enough or with sufficient deference should come as no surprise.
     
  5. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    No doubt, jg. I guess I would have hoped pseudoscience like eugenics would be dead and buried by now. But yeah, the Bell Curve wasn't even that long ago.
     
  6. Watson and Crick probably changed the way we look at the world more than anyone since Darwin -- without ever giving due credit to poor Rosalind Franklin, of course.
    Watson has always been a crank outside the lab. Now, he's 79 and probably not altogether there.
    Sad.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It actually surprises me a great deal. Genetics is such a precise science. I have a good friend from college who is a geneticist and he is the most rational person I have ever met. James Watson is arguably the most influential scientist of the 20th century. Given how rooted in precision his scientific work was, the fact that he is lending his name to something as imprecise and imbecilic as "all you have to do is hire a few black people and you quickly know they aren't that bright," is really baffling. It's also the kind of dangerous rhetoric bigots hang their hats on.
     
  8. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    The update:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2193899,00.html
     
  9. Idaho

    Idaho Active Member

    Picking nits here, but he's American. Born in Chicago, educated at Cambridge, though.
     
  10. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Nice catch, Idy, thanks.
     
  11. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

  12. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I'd prefer that my Nobel recipients be at least a smidge smarter than Al Campanis, but that's just me.

    Seriously, we don't even know enough about how the brain works to be able to have any confidence in any tests being a reliable indicator of how well a person uses his or her brain.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page