Nobel Prizewinner James Watson Won’t Stop Talking About Race, DNA, and Genetics
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
It's frustrating for me that as a society, we'd rather silence the bad man than challenge difficult ideas.
People only listen to him because he won a Nobel prize? You say this as though winning a Nobel prize is no big deal. I was under the impression that it was a big deal.
Based on his merits as a scientist — backed up by previously mentioned Nobel prize — I think his propositions should at least be considered. If he is wrong, then whatever data he is citing should be easily enough falsified.
Again I say this as a layman, but if the guy is wrong, use the data to show that he is wrong. That’s how science works. Rejecting his position because it makes you uncomfortable is not far off book burning.
[1][https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-t...]
"I'm a medical doctor, so that's why you should totally believe my made up BS about what's wrong with your car."
Having expertise in one field absolutely doesn't make you qualified to speak with authority on something else. Citing your unrelated credentials in another field is a bit like wearing a McDonald's uniform to prove you're important and should be obeyed in that it works shockingly often, but it really shouldn't. Any uniform at all, even a high school band uniform, gets reacted to by a lot of people like you are an authority whose orders should be obeyed, even though you really aren't.
Some mental shortcuts for deciding what you should believe can easily lead people astray. This is one of them.
Because I've always repeated the same point whenever confronted with racist talking points. Am I misguided?
Because consider that:
* It seems that the scientific community is willing to have an open dialogue about the possibility of some ethnic groups having HIGHER intelligence due to genetic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
* Therefore the idea of genetics affecting intelligence isn't outlandish.
* It is natural that there would be a double standard for doing similar research with regards to ethnic groups that have faced hundreds of years of history of racial discrimination - with remnant ripples in today's age (as well as new types of systemic racial discrimination). (And yes, I realize of course that the Jewish community has also faced hundreds of years of discrimination also, but in this case the genetic evidence is POSITIVE)
* So it seems that before we can have a real wreckoning with the idea of some ethnic or racial groups be genetically predispositioned to lower intelligence, we have to first establish a truly post-racial society so that any findings do not exacerbate the progress.
* But until we get there we have to be honest about the reasons why some scientific research may be dangerous and why some conclusions can cause genuine harm to the wellbeing of millions of human beings in their quest for prosperity, or even basic survival.
Where I'm leading with this is I think we should be able to have the conversation with people like James Watson without ostracizing them, shunning them, and ruining their lives in the process. We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist.
I think instead we should be honest that this is a highly complex and highly charged topic, and there are so many variables at play that we are unlikely to get a definitive answer either way. But until we do, and until our civilization can handle realizations that put one group of people at a disadvantage (and specifically individuals without that group who would be harmed by association), we should invest all our efforts into the nurture/societal aspects of the equation to mitigate any possible inequalities on measures like IQ tests.
No, the evidence is pretty consistent that a little over half the variation in IQ is genetic.
That's not the part that is in dispute.
> It seems that the scientific community is willing to have an open dialogue about the possibility of some ethnic groups having HIGHER intelligence due to genetic reasons
Yes, that's also not in dispute.
That genetics play an important role in intelligence is known. That this sometimes aligns with identifiable ethnic groups is also known. But there is very good reason to believe at least most and likely all of the black-white IQ gap observed in the United States is due to environment, and particularly social/cultural environment, including race-based stereotypes and expectations.
Among the evidence for that is that the gap is largely eliminated for young black and mixed-race adoptees raised in white families (and also that some of it returns for older black and mixed-race adoptees.)
> We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist.
His specifix ideas, in light of the available evidence, are backwards and racist.
The question, I think, is, since concepts like "race" are primarily social constructs (indeed, genetics helped overturn the older view that "race" was an entirely biologically concept), why should we think there is a genetic correlation between race and intelligence?
When you write "It seems that the scientific community", bear in mind that many people in the scientific community are also racist, sexist, and otherwise biased. That is, you can't always infer significance just because there is open dialogue.
You write: "the genetic evidence is POSITIVE". Except the link you pointed to includes "Other scientists gave the paper a mixed reception, ranging from outright dismissal to acknowledgement that the hypothesis might be true and merits further research" and "Assuming that today there is a statistical difference in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and other ethnic groups, there still remains the question of how much of the difference is caused by genetic factors." and "Criticism of the genetic explanations" and "Cultural explanations".
At best, isn't it just an hypothesis, based on a single research paper? I do not think that's a substantial base for your argument.
You write "we should be able to have the conversation with people like James Watson". Except, "we" have. How can you have a conversation with someone who isn't listening? What do you do with someone who, for decades, has made unjustified statements like (quoting https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theori... ):
> there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers," Watson said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
> Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious.
> "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said.
> Watson showed slides of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa.
> Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer because of sunlight deprivation.
That was 18 years ago. The evidence doesn't support him. Yet he keeps making the same statements.
You write "We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist."
What if the idea really is backwards and racist? You've said that you don't have the knowledge of the field to determine what the science is, so I don't think you can make conclude that such comments aren't justified.
"unlikely to get a definitive answer either way"
In many of the things Watson says, we know that Watson's statements are unsupported by evidence. How much more definitive do you want to get?
This sounds like an easy way to falsify the racial intelligence differences hypothesis (or at least throw out the data that supports it). The fact that the reaction to this is a bunch of handwaving bullshit instead of simply performing this experiment and attempting to falsify is a huge red flag.
It's just all the social ramifications that are horrific.
The Flynn effect shows that to be incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Flynn_ef... . "The importance of the Flynn effect in the debate over the causes for the IQ gap lies in demonstrating that environmental factors may cause changes in test scores on the scale of 1 SD. This had previously been doubted."
Furthermore, "A separate phenomenon from the Flynn effect has been the discovery that the IQ gap has been gradually closing over the last decades of the 20th century, as black test-takers increased their average scores relative to white test-takers."
These show that if IQ tests are a reasonable measure of intellectual ability then there is a strong environmental component - far greater than what Shockley concluded. In other words, Shockley was wrong.
This is in addition to the multiple threads of research which concluded that a race assignment like "American Negro" has little to no genetic basis. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) as a starting point:
> By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal -was very small.
> A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
So again, Shockley was wrong.
Since intelligence really does have a strong environmental component then Shockley eugenics goals (He "proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization"), would have resulted in the disproportional removal of the gene lines of black people who, were it not for environmental reasons, would have had above average intelligence and thus be a benefit if the goal really was to breed for better intelligence.
That is, "certain desired traits" like intelligence are not as easily measured as Shockley would have us believe, and certainly not to the point where it can be considered "mechanical."
Except we know that intelligence is strongly heritable[1]. We know that genes affect hormone levels[2], which in turn probably influence behavior. We can clearly see measurable, consistent physical differences among populations (think sports, for example), but scientists are bending over backwards to avoid the obvious conclusion that, yes, there are likely to be deep cognitive differences among different populations that can only be partly explained or mitigated by environment. This kind of thinking is fundamentally unscientific, and there rationally should not be anything controversial about Watson's position.
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
2.https://www.livescience.com/16439-lowtestosterone-men-geneti...
Aren't Watson's claims about IQ differences falsifiable? Either because the evidence he claims exists actually doesn't exist, or because the evidence exists but doesn't support his claims?
No one in the article directly falsified the claims ... they said things like it's “essentially guaranteed to be wrong" instead of "factually incorrect."
By "race" I assume you mean primarily skin color, and secondarily some facial features or hair types, yes?
There are a huge number of phenotypes besides skin color: hair color, eye color, blood types, cleft chin, cheek dimples, Hitchhiker's thumb, tongue rolling, Morton's toe, and many more.
It seems like most of them are not genetically linked to intelligence, so I don't know what you mean by "linked ... everywhere".
Could you also clarify what you mean by "race"? Most definitions are not really connected to genetics, which is why it usually doesn't make sense that there should be a genetic link. Eg, the archaic "one drop rule" race definition in the US clearly doesn't make genetic sense - see also the so-called "Pocahontas Clause" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924#T... to show how politics affects that type of racial definition.
(Some people also distinguish between, say, the Irish, Anglo-Saxon, and German races, but then use "black" for anyone with black skin, which seems really absurd since the genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is higher than in Europe; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering .)
You write "The only way to prove its environment is to disprove the genetic component". There is clearly a genetic component, because there are genetic diseases which result in low intelligence.
We don't need to show that there is no genetic component. We need only show that the the non-environmental effect is low enough that it does not make a useful predictor when correlated with race. Do you think that is impossible?
Most experts agreed our solar system was geocentric until Copernicus came along.
There are a number of plausible environmental explanations ... for example, questions on IQ tests having cultural biases.
Wikipedia has a long article that dives into all these points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
> The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not necessarily representative samples for populations in other parts of the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.
> Most people have an ancestry from different geographic regions, particularly African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors. If racial IQ gaps have a partially genetic basis, one might expect blacks with a higher degree of European ancestry to score higher on IQ tests than blacks with less European ancestry, because the genes inherited from European ancestors would likely include some genes with a positive effect on IQ. Geneticist Alan Templeton has argued that an experiment based on the Mendelian "common garden" design where specimens with different hybrid compositions are subjected to the same environmental influences, would be the only way to definitively show a causal relation between genes and IQ. Summarizing the findings of admixture studies, he concludes that it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry.
Found this on Wikipedia[1]:
"Since the beginning of IQ testing around the time of World War I there have been observed differences between average scores of different population groups, but there has been no agreement about whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or mainly due to some genetic factor, or even if the dichotomy between environmental and genetic factors is the most effectual approach to the debate."
So that appears to confirm -- the differences in IQ test scores do exist, but there is disagreement on how to explain the differences.
Watson's claims exceed what the evidence supports, in that he claims the differences are genetic, but the evidence is incapable of telling us whether that is the case or not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intell...
He said, "I'm worried about Africa because our policies assume their IQ is the same as ours" (paraphrase, not an exact quote).
To base "worry" about a section of the world on differences in IQ tests relies on the assumption that IQ is a major determinant in how a section of the world fares.
In other words, even if you accept that we have evidence of IQ differences, we have no evidence measuring moral differences, community/social differences, ambition levels, etc.
So his comment doesn't reflect careful, nuanced thought. For someone who usually does think carefully, it's not unreasonable to think the lack of careful thought here is driven by a desire to confirm a pre-existing bias (such as the bias that whites are superior).
The Brahmin say they are the chosen people, the Jews say they are the chosen people, Presbyterians say they are the elect - it's hard to reason people out of what is essentially a religious belief.
As behavioral modernity was not on display until 40000-50000 years ago, the idea that there is some significant genetic difference in this aspect seems silly.