Dr James Watson resigned

[Brad Johnson]

When I say rejecting a hypothesis, I mean it in the statistical sense. For example, if you wanted to reject Watson's hypothesis that black employees are less clever then you would have to perform surveys, tests etc.

Why? He didn't.

I don't put much stock in that assertion, because it's like saying employers think _____ about employees of _____ race: it's not a particularly great assessment, because it doesn't mean anything.

And you didn't have to perform surveys, tests etc. to come to that conclusion.

As far as IQ tests are concerned, this has been studied many times before, and not just by Nazis. The null hypothesis that all races have the same average IQ has never been rejected on statistical grounds: the vast majority of research has indicated that there ARE differences, according to current testing methods. This may change in the future, who knows.

When I say research further, I don't mean that it's necessary or deserving of grants. However, I think it is a worthwhile topic to investigate as far as equality is concerned: have we achieved it, and if not, then why? If you study statistics a little you'll tend to find that different groups of people of all types (ie: NJ residents vs. WA residents, 17 year olds vs. 19 year olds, etc.) will score differently in certain measures... sometimes due to chance, sometimes not.

One of the interesting things about IQ is that it is constantly changing in the population. Over time, our average IQ has increased. This may affect ethnic groups differently, and perhaps it shows that there is something flawed in the original tests. Or maybe we're just getting smarter.

As for what this means for the individual... it doesn't mean anything. You can be smart or dumb regardless of race, but studies have shown that some groups average a few points higher or lower than others.

Environment can play a huge part in this and not just on a macro level. If you happen to be a kid who grew up with a computer and were exposed to educational materials, you might have a leg up on someone who didn't have the same access. Wouldn't necessarily make you more intelligent.

Drop a city kid on a farm and let him milk a bull... see who's smarter in that situation.

 

[Norwegianwood]

When I say rejecting a hypothesis, I mean it in the statistical sense. For example, if you wanted to reject Watson's hypothesis that black employees are less clever then you would have to perform surveys, tests etc. I don't put much stock in that assertion, because it's like saying employers think _____ about employees of _____ race: it's not a particularly great assessment, because it doesn't mean anything.

As for what this means for the individual... it doesn't mean anything. You can be smart or dumb regardless of race, but studies have shown that some groups average a few points higher or lower than others.

To your first point: Well, it is really his job to back his hypothesis with empirical data, not mine. Especially when the "thesis" is as controversial as this one, and does not lean on the current body of knowledge. Oh, and a correlation in itself implies nothing, as you know. The surveys and tests would have to include <i>lots of variables</i> to discover whatever causal connection there might be.

 

[Ericman197]

Why? He didn't.
And you didn't have to perform surveys, tests etc. to come to that conclusion.

I could if I wanted to, but it would be pointless because it's an opinion matter. In an ideal world IQ tests would be an accurate measure of a person's intelligence, and therefore we could use them to say that I am smarter than person B and that test group X is dumber than control group Y. Asking employers what they think of their employees isn't a great measure of intelligence. It might be useful as one measure of work ethic: are employees of ethnicity A lazier than those of ethnicity B? If the employers say yes then this will show us that either ethnicity A IS lazy (and we would have to perform tests to determine this) OR it might show that employers do not like ethnicity A. Ultimately however I don't think this is a useful assessment other than to determine the perception of an employer, so I see no need for further testing unless you're interested in that.

Anyway guys, no need to get upset over this. I'm just playing sort of a devil's advocate, stats based kinda thing. If someone can find a series of accurate studies that contradict Watson then we can lay the null hypothesis to rest. Until then... further testing...

 

[Norwegianwood]

Ultimately however I don't think this is a useful assessment other than to determine the perception of an employer, so I see no need for further testing unless you're interested in that.

Well, so his hypothesis is unfalsifialbe, then?

 

[Deleted member 79588]

Well, so his hypothesis is unfalsifialbe, then?

No. But scientific evidence to void his hypothesis hasn't been found.

 

[ImaStupidBaby]

It could be said that the reason his comments offend is because people allow themselves to be offended. If an offensive comment is uttered in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, was it indeed offensive?

I have been struggling to teach my children (ages 5 1/2 and 7) that just because someone says something you don't like does not mean you have to respond or react to it. Especially if you know what they are saying is utter nonsense.

This lesson extends to reacting to minor physical discomfort/injury too. They have learned to cry out at one very extreme level of intensity the minute they feel the slightest amount of discomfort - a gas bubble - a minor bump on the arm - they all carry the same weight for them as if they were have a limb severed.

I take them aside when they react this way and explain that, yes, getting a boo boo hurts, but you don't always have to react by screaming and freaking out. I don't tell them not to cry or that it's wrong to be upset by the event. But if they react to a little boo boo the same way they react to a serious injury, that could be a bad thing. Further, overreacting to minor things takes away from valuable fun time.

Simplistically, I am trying to acquaint them with the idea of scale with regard to their emotional reactions. If you want real power, recognize that you can essentially make something disappear by simply choosing not to acknowledge it if it does not warrant acknowledgment. Watch nonsense disappear into thin air!

But the concept that there are other ways to react to unpleasant events in life is not a naturally instilled idea - it must be taught. Too many people, IMO, ignore this in their parental teachings.

Are my lessons working? Just yesterday my girl was telling me with pride how, even though she was trampled by the other girls on the soccer field when she was playing goalie - and even though she got a cut on her finger - that bled - she chose not to cry about it (her words). She told me that she thought about it for a second and decided that she didn't need to cry.

I am so proud!

NOW I have a real-world event to tie more abstract life lessons to for her. Like when one of her playmates says something hurtful, for example;

"Honey, remember that time you were on the bottom of the pile in soccer and chose not to cry? Well, this is similar to that..."

If my 7-year-old can get it, don't you think us "all grow'd up" people should be able to as well?

I'm not sure what it is, but there is a difference between a 7 year old girl getting a superficial cut and a Nobel laureate suggesting that one race is genetically less intelligent than another race. Small difference, I know, but its certainly there.

 

[mike_v_s]

I'm not sure what it is, but there is a difference between a 7 year old girl getting a superficial cut and a Nobel laureate suggesting that one race is genetically less intelligent than another race. Small difference, I know, but its certainly there.

It's only there if you put stock in Nobel laureates. Their stock took a tumble recently.

Mike

 

[Deleted member 79588]

I'm not sure what it is, but there is a difference between a 7 year old girl getting a superficial cut and a Nobel laureate suggesting that one race is genetically less intelligent than another race. Small difference, I know, but its certainly there.

There's a difference, and there's also a similarity in that people don't need to have a bitchfest about everything that happens. Everyone's entitled to freedom of speech, he voiced his, great. Is it really worth it for people to put forth time and effort complaining about something someone said?

 

[mike_v_s]

There's a difference, and there's also a similarity in that people don't need to have a bitchfest about everything that happens. Everyone's entitled to freedom of speech, he voiced his, great. Is it really worth it for people to put forth time and effort complaining about something someone said?

Where would the internet be without this effort?

Mike

 

[morf]

If you dont want to discuss this, why are you in this thread????

 

[ImaStupidBaby]

It's only there if you put stock in Nobel laureates. Their stock took a tumble recently.

Mike

Politics aside, the Nobel committee has a good track record for picking good science. Yeah, Gore's prize might bother you...but are you going to argue with them giving Marie Curie a prize?

 

[mike_v_s]

Politics aside, the Nobel committee has a good track record for picking good science. Yeah, Gore's prize might bother you...but are you going to argue with them giving Marie Curie a prize?

Am I going to argue? You're not familiar with my style, are you?
Mike

 

[ImaStupidBaby]

There's a difference, and there's also a similarity in that people don't need to have a bitchfest about everything that happens. Everyone's entitled to freedom of speech, he voiced his, great. Is it really worth it for people to put forth time and effort complaining about something someone said?

Yes, because when people like Dr. Watson say ridiculous things, they need to be called out on them. A lot of people have a lot of respect and admiration for his work, and the contributions that he's made. Some of us even look up to Watson and Crick. Some of us think its very sad when one of our heroes says something that so significantly tarnishes their career. Its sad to see Dr Watson's career end like this.

 

[ImaStupidBaby]

Am I going to argue? You're not familiar with my style, are you?
Mike

What is your style? Aside from being as condescending as possible?

 

[Mike Money]

What is your style? Aside from being as condescending as possible?

Hey there boy... Here at TB, we treat guys named Mike with the utmost respect.

 

[HollowBassman]

What is your style? Aside from being as condescending as possible?

Condescending and Hilarious.

 

[mike_v_s]

What is your style? Aside from being as condescending as possible?

That was more sarcasm than condescension...although the confusion is now making me think I need try a bit harder to make sure everyone knows when I'm kidding and when I'm not. Here: i'm full of crap most days. That ought to do it.
Mike

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Drop a city kid on a farm and let him milk a bull... see who's smarter in that situation.

The BULL!!!!


Mooo!

 

[Norwegianwood]

There's a difference, and there's also a similarity in that people don't need to have a bitchfest about everything that happens. Everyone's entitled to freedom of speech, he voiced his, great. Is it really worth it for people to put forth time and effort complaining about something someone said?

Well, calling a well known scientist on his racist hate propaganda is not equal to "bitchfesting".

And once again, it is his job to prove his hypothesis with empirical evidence (or/and logic coherence) - not mine. I think the argument "it has not been proven to be wrong", is pretty weak - and just serves to justify his ****ed up mind.

If he said bass players are more intelligent than guitar players, however.........

 

[tZer]

I'm not sure what it is, but there is a difference between a 7 year old girl getting a superficial cut and a Nobel laureate suggesting that one race is genetically less intelligent than another race. Small difference, I know, but its certainly there.

[edit - too much blah, blah, blah]

Indeed there is a difference between the two events - but the point is how people choose to react to things that bother them. If more people reacted more proportionately to negative stimuli, the world would have far fewer battles spurned by asininity. Words will always be only words. Actions will always be what count. If people react properly to words WITH words, than the negative results of actions taken for the sake of words decreases.