James Watson

> He didn't say that all blacks are dumb. He just said that intelligence is linked to genes.

independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

>Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Yes exactly so, because while genetic and medical researchers would argue about the specifics concerning the classification's terminology.

They do agree that classification does have some use in categorizing the effectiveness of various medications on target populations. Though "race" is still less useful than the more robust and logical system that being geography in this respect.

Well I guess he's not wrong. Do I need to post that Empire of Dust webm?

I admire his work, and enjoyed his book on biochem, but I think his statement about Africa is a bit too reductionist, mainly because "Black Africans" is too big of a group. Generally in population genetics we analyze traits at the population or ethnic group level. There are a lot of African ethnicities that are dumb but a lot of them are normal or even intelligent. I'm mostly thinking of Nigerians. You have to remember that this guy's contributions to genetics were from a molecular perspective and not a pop gen perspective, and the two are basically completely different sciences.

I admire his work, and enjoyed his book on biochem, but I think his statement about Africa is a bit too reductionist, mainly because "Black Africans" is too big of a group. Generally in population genetics we analyze traits at the population or ethnic group level. There are a lot of African ethnicities that are dumb but a lot of them are normal or even intelligent. I'm mostly thinking of Nigerians. You have to remember that this guy's contributions to genetics were from a molecular perspective and not a pop gen perspective, and the two are basically completely different sciences.

He refused to credit her and still does to this day. If you think she doesn't deserve any credit, you are the one who has never worked on a paper.

Modern day, he's just a fucking quack that says things so retarded you know he's just garnering attention. I forget, was he the same guy that said "men fall in love with women in the lab and that's why women can't be scientists" or was that someone else?

...

Why do you expect him to carry papers iwth him in the middle of an interview?

The evidence that people of subsaharan african origin have a much lower mean IQ than europeans or east asians even when those people of subsaharan african origin have been raised in a first world education system is abundant. There's even the minnesota transracial adoption study where they tested adopted blacks against adopted whites (where all th adopting parents were white and affluent and lived in minnesota) and although both samples had a slightly higher mean IQ than normal for their race in the country, there was still an IQ gap of ~15 points just like in the general population.

so what is wrong with saying "I'm gloomy about the future of africa, because all our policy is based on the idea that they're as intelligent as us, but all the evidence says not really?"

physicists give their views on what they think will happen all the time even when something isn't totally proven , e.g. back in the 20th century "It seems like black holes probably do exist".

But a biologist can't do the same? That's disingenuous.

Be honest, if you wanted not to lose money and you were given a bet that would be refereed by an omniscient alien race on whether black people had an average IQ either lower than that of europeans or at least as high as europeans even if both races were raised from birth by robots in identical environments, which side of the bet would you take?

A rational bet-taker estimate that the probability that the mean IQ of blacks is lower than that of europeans is higher than the probability that the mean IQ of blacks is at least as high as that of europeans because they'd take into account hte prior evidence of the racial IQ gap and minnesota transracial adoption study.

Let us hope the 50.000 jews that died in WW2 due to allies bombardment of supply lines rest in peace.

>He refused to credit her and still does to this day.

Wrong. He credits her (a couple of times if I'm not mistaken) in this book "The Double Helix". He also points out how he couldn't credit her at the time, because the results were from an unpublished paper, paper that looked like it would never be published at the time.

>or was that someone else?
That was Sir Tim Hunt, he was making a joke about how he met his wife.

>huge IQ differences persist even in transracial adoption studies
>rogue test produces vastly different results for blacks vs whites
>testing whether children are capable of delaying their gratification shows vast differences between the races
>monoamine oxidase A exists
>crime stats adjusted for poverty and education exist
>b-but evolution only affects skin color, muscle fibers, bone structure, bone density, disease resistance, blood cells, height, penis length, hair structure, reflexes, cranial circumference
>the brain is made up of magic and dreams and therefore is not affected by natural processes

Everyone denying race is an intellectual coward and deserves to be shot. I'm not even gonna bother dumping a ton of info since people determined to deny reality will just try to nitpick some minute details they disagree with to dismiss the topic entirely.

pseudointellectual twerps

>le epic holocaust denial bait

Retard. The original paper on DNA by Watson and Crick explicitly mentions Rosalind Franklin. Go google it and check for yourself.

Not to mention that Franklin died from a cancer before Watson and Crick got the Nobel, and that is the reason why she was not nominated.

Your point of view would be more acceptable if it didn't reliably come from lunatics who think that 9/11 and the holocaust were faked.

> so what is wrong with saying "I'm gloomy about the future of africa, because all our policy is based on the idea that they're as intelligent as us, but all the evidence says not really?"

The problem is that he's treating Africa as some nebulous geographic region with a universally distributed population and universally distributed problems. It isn't, Africa is a bunch of nations with various resources, cultures and intelligence thresholds.

This is on top of the fact that the current policies by western nations are derived from a post ww2 set of philosophies were geographically close warring nations (EU) and their close political allies (US, Canada, Russia & Japan) work together on a global scale for a near mutual benefit as not to repeat the economic devastation that occurred in ww1 and 2 again. And the only African nations to thrive under said philosophies are South Africa because it's previous ties and roots with Europe and Nigeria due to it's constant willingness to do trade and business with America and European countries pre and post colonial times.

Most other African countries lack those ties and are in a state of frequent mismanagement in both their government and economy. Then you have the african nations under majority muslim populations that are suffering from political clashes that undermine international economic policies.

Also what about China? They have similar if not higher intelligence averages than western nations but the adoption and compliance of western policies while giving them a great economic boom has pretty much near ruined their water supply, air quality and ecosystem. Where is Watson's standing on that? Or does these issue suddenly become cultural differences because of "reasons"?

>what about China?
China keeps its borders closed, and tightly control any potential spread of the equality meme.
Once the west have fallen to misgeneation and ethnic replacement, and so will have become a third-world shithole since demography is destiny, China ( Japan and Korea too probably ) will inherit the world.

Assuming the existence of some African tribe that has intelligence on the same level as normal humans, we already know they'll be out-bred by the r-strategy savages. So, their society will be forever burdened by an underclass, and thanks to democracy they won't even have political power.

China is doing great, and now has the sophistication to use nuclear power, thus solving its environmental problems.

>demography is destiny
>thinking that japan will still exist in the future

Civilization leads to low birth rates, which leads to annihilation.

Habitation cost is the primary factor in the difficulty in growing a family, and since less population means a reduction in housing prices...

Japan is already seeing its birthrate rise, which is to be expected as the proportion of people that breed even when the situation is unfavourable to breeding rise.

In a mere three generations, their population will stabilise in an equilibrium while still being 98,5% japanese, while still being human, contrary to the suicidal west.

you are thinking of einsberg

All of the above.

This is such pedantic distraction I'd like you to kill yourself.

On average people from sub-saharan african descent have a much lower IQ than whites or asians. Do individual tribes vary in their precise intelligence? Yes but they still fail to score even close to caucasian/east asian people.

>muh nigeria

Pic related, straight from jewpedia.

>muh IQ

No one is even fucking denying the Intelligence difference you idiot. The point is a guy who specializes in genetics is voicing his views of the economic future of an entire god damn continent with little to no demonstrated experience in the economics field.

You know who also has a low IQ? The middle east, but they still managed to have western nations by the fucking balls because they have a lock in the current energy economy. So now America is stuck in the bullshit holy conflict that goes back thousands of years ago and Europe is stuck with a constant influx of immigrants.

So much for having the high ground in IQ.

>Africa as some nebulous geographic region
Alright, we can guess that he probably meant subsaharan africa, given that he mentions black people. he's probably not talking about caucasoid berbers and arabs. What about Subsaharan africa is "nebulous" ? we can argree on where the saharan desert is, right?
>with a universally distributed population
He doesn't make that assumption, but amongst black people in general in western countries, and among IQ studies done in subsaharan african nations , they almost always get mean IQs significantly below 100.

>This is on top of the fact that [...]
I glossed over this paragraph because it doesn't seem to be talking about subsaharan african IQs and so is irrelevent, because the fact that there may be additional reasons to be gloomy about africa doesnot have any bearing on the validity of watson's statement.

>Where is Watson's standing on that?
why is he obliged to have a standing?

Watson is implying that IF your population's mean IQ is ~85 (as black people do when raised in western countries, in subsaharan african countries the mean IQ of nations is typically significantly lower, like 75), THEN your country will have difficulty developing.

This is not the same as implying that IF your country has difficulty developing THEN your population must have a low mean IQ.
So China isn't a counter example to his position at all.

people arent outraged with his statements because of the economics of development, they're outraged by him saying that black people have a low mean IQ.

>The middle east, but they still managed to have western nations by the fucking balls because they have a lock in the current energy economy.

only a small number of gulf states have good economic development, because they're swimming in oil.
Does the rest of the middle east "have western states by the balls" ? of course not.

Secondly the middle east has low mean IQ within their countries (90 in most of them afaik, while in subsaharan africa the mean IQ of most nations is in the 70s)but amongst the diaspora living in western nations who have access to first world education they're fairly normal, while subsarahan africans born in western nations who went to first world schools still have a mean IQ of around 85.

So the middle east isn't a very good counter example.

>now go back to /pol/
Is it true that every other board hates /pol/?

>Also what about China? They have similar if not higher intelligence averages than western nations

Nigga please... the chinese and most asian nations heavily skew their IQ test results. You think they are giving IQ tests to random rice farmers in the country side when they produce those averages?

9/11 wasn't faked. an Israeli film crew said on television that they were sent to document the towers' destruction.

>because the results were from an unpublished paper
And using results from a not yet published paper does not raise any red flags with you??

A lot of strange contrasts there:
- Uruguay vs. Paraguay
- Argentina vs. Brazil
- Ireland vs. Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK)
- Norway vs. Sweden
- Portugal vs. Spain
- Germany vs. Italy (not to poo on the Italians but I had expected Germany to be closer to the top)
- Iran vs Europe (Iranians are ethnically and linguistically close to Indo-europeans)

>intelligent racist
As if racists are an actual demographic and not just an opinion which is able to be formulated by anyone. This kind of blinkered thinking is the reason the West is in the midst of invasion and decline.

- Ireland vs. Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK)
- Norway vs. Sweden
- Portugal vs. Spain
The data varies based on the source and the examiners. For instance I've seen maps where Ireland was a bit higher than Britain, Sweden a bit higher than Norway and so on. The details don't matter, what matters are the overall trends and they never change.

>israeli film crew
I think you meant Mossad, no?

Nope, it's surprisingly common.

>he refused to credit her

except he did retard

looking at Retraction Watch and hearing a few stories locally I feel the ethics has gone down the tubes.

It may be common.

It is however a massive breach of trust unless there is an explicit permission involved which is unlikely since that will scoop the first investigator.

And just when you thought things had hit rock bottom you find they have started digging, like a person caught forging the results is now edging in back into research.

Admit that the holocaust happened.

>- Uruguay vs. Paraguay
>- Argentina vs. Brazil
What's so strange about this? none of these countries are similar in demographics you ignorant fucking American.

>Treating Africa as some nebulous

okay well you can look at Lynn's compilation of data on particular countries and of blacks in different countries instead of quote mining from some guy who was speaking extemporaneously.

>This is on top of the fact that the current policies by western nations are derived from a post ww2 set of philosophies were geographically close warring nations (EU) ...

Well, that's a cool just-so narrative for the IQ differences but genetics is a better one because it actually has evidence via admixture studies, adoption studies, sub-test heritability studies, the general heritability of IQ, and racial variations in the distribution of genes that predict IQ in the normal range.

>You know who also has a low IQ? The middle east, but they still managed to have western nations by the fucking balls

They wouldn't if some high IQ people from high IQ countries didn't see an opportunity in securing a permanent voting racket from their low IQ populations. The immigrants aren't attacking Europe, it's something orchestrated by high IQ people in order to secure a voting racket. The Middle East is a shitty place in which to live because it has low IQ people and the extent to which they "have the west by the balls" is exaggerated. The reason they still hold their oil fields is basically because of western permission. Not kidding. If colonization and capture of resources wasn't condemned as morally wrong by these self-same high IQ nations, it is a guarantee that nearly all oil holdings in the middle east would belong to some European or East Asian colonizer.

The last point was responded to a different guy FYI.

He was a bright guy and is a good example of how bright people can mislead themselves because the people that confront them will rarely be intellectually capable of challenging them.

This is irrespective of whether or not he's actually right, mind you. He certainly didn't present sufficient evidence for his beliefs, though he likely could have; the bigger problem is a lot of his extrapolations and generalization (e.g, "Our social policies" being "based on the idea they have the same intelligence as us."

Just adding, he also was definitely censored by the scientific community and mainstream culture in a way that didn't actually try to address what he said in a serious, meaningful way. This probably only furthered his confidence.

Hearing about him trying to sell his medal was heartbreaking.

Even if you think he's right on race his reasoning for thinking what he thought was pretty fucking retarded. He thought that taking melanin abstracts would increase your libido because he thought dark skinned people had a higher libido.

Well he doesn't really matter because he was speaking extemporaneously. It is bizarre that we are using his interview and non-expertise as a conduit to discuss this topic.

Yeah and racial egalitarians usually have even more retarded reasons for believing that all of the races are equal in important ways. He at least had ass-anecdotes.

The reason that you feel the need to mock his hypothesis about libido, which isn't actually unreasonable given the higher prevalence of sexual problems in darker people that could be caused in part by higher libido, is because it's a hypothesis that's unflattering to black people. He personally didn't give data to support it, so it was basically a guess, but other guesses which are equally conjectural and speculative don't get an eye batted at them. But the reason you needed to attack the guess as retarded is because it was a "racist" conjecture, so NOW we get all academic about it while putting on kid gloves for batshit crazy egalitarian just-so stories for X disparity, and you need to have a large and conclusive dataset that other conjectures of similar quality don't require.

I wasn't mocking his hypothesis that race was related to libido, in fact I'm very willing to accept its possibility. I'm mocking the idea that it's related to melanin in any single-cause way and, more importantly, his thinking that melanin extracts would raise libido in whites.

You really read into a lot that's not there.

He said nothing even slightly unreasonable (that is; nothing unsupported by data) and the response to what he said was nothing short of appalling.

He said a lot of things unsupported by data. Not just that he didn't offer data, it would be difficult to find any serious study establishing anything he said about race beyond his remarks on intelligence.

The proper response was definitely to just point that out though, not torch the man's career.

>social science is legit only when it supports racism but it isn't legit when it supports feminism or minorities.
kek

All social sciences are garbage, user. He barely got a sliver of the ridicule he deserved.

>social science is legit only when it supports racism but it isn't legit when it supports feminism or minorities.

Huh, that's a good point.

>or a man who spoke the truth in a time where lies rule?
This one.

What I love about anti-racist ideologues is that every single argument they make only works against racial essentialism.

You can just say "well I don't think races exist, just human populations" and all their objections just fall flat.

Please expand on this.
And preferably with better accuracy than your estimate of my origins which was completely off.

Nature is cruel.

>melanin abstracts would increase your libido
Well, Barbie dope is a thing, isn't it? Certainly popular among young people here in Europe.

Part of the problem with Africans is social, and part of the problem is parasites. Eliminate both, and you may very well see an increase in intelligence.

>Barbie dope
the fuck is this

>hurr durr

user, just tell me how you expect people to cite a paper that's sitting on your lab heads desk. Watkins had seen the slide, he had just thought it unimportant.

while people like to meme that argentina is black, they are mostly white( german+iberian descent) while on brazil you have a mini africa on the northeast, a fuckload of indians-whites mestizos on the northwest and 70% white on the south

t.brazillian

>Empire of Dust

Allow me. The asian guy puts out reasonable statements and the african man just sits there shaking his head in denial. The documentary really sheds light on the self imposed problems that black countries face.

I put no stock into one man's opinion. I put stock into the overall whole of scientific research. Genetic research has consistently shown that race is arbitrary. You'll get just as much value out of organizing the human genome by eye color or height.

Well, melanin is also a hormone so this justification just proves that you were digging to see something "retarded" about the hypothesis. Melanin might actually be related to violence as well. Ur dumb desu senpai.

Racial essentialism was never believed and is a made up horror story about how stupid the "old racialists" were, when in fact they were never that stupid.

That's melaTOnin you stupid fuck

Melanin is a pigment

Holy fuck, why do I ever think it's worth it to start arguing with retards

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory

>no sources

>brazilian """whites"""

He told one of my profs. that women belong in the kitchen not the lab, it was the 90s

Has anyone disproved him yet?

Truth in a time of lies.

Disproved what exactly? He made a dumb comment in an interview, not a presentation of scientific research and data

Disproved the africans are naturally morons thing.

That was never even proven to any extent. Show me all the genes that contribute to intelligence, and that the allele frequencies for those genes are clustered far beyond what we observe for known allele frequencies and SNV variation.

>Show me all the genes that contribute to intelligence
IQ

>IQ is a gene

...

Those sloped foreheads they got though.
>being on Veeky Forums
>doesnt think intelligence is all genes

You are in the wrong place bro.

race is only skin-deep

...

post all the pictures

I dont remember the other debunked claims but I want to hoard them all

...

So Indians and Aboriginals are black people? Alsu Australians have a much redder skin complexion than British people so are Australians not white? What about the descendents of Spaniard that make up most of Venezuela and Colombia and have a yellowish hue to their skin are they not white either? Oh yh japanese people have pale skin so they are white yes?

ASPM and MCPH1 were taken off the list of possible genes that contribute to intelligence several years ago

hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/6/600.short

im just trying to get this user to post the 9 pictures that BTFO people saying >we're all human but these dogs born in different regions ARE NOT THE SAME

...

Blatantly wrong. Only a small percent of sub-saharan africans don't have DNA similar to neanderthals.

>showing a PCA with no data
Being able to deduce someone's ancestry does not mean such divisions are significant in any way. Almost 90% of all SNVs are shared across all continents, and less than 1.8% of alleles are unique to any one continent.

The most unsettling thing about these pictures is the consistency in african under performance compared to other races.

That says they are "speculative", not that they were taken off.

>at least 1 individual in any given population has the allele
>therefore it doesn't matter if the other 980 individuals don't
nice

>Update
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210000862

hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/12/2025.short

Black Africans have the most diverse DNA on earth because they have been isolated from the rest of humanity for a very long time user so course blacks would have alleles that humans outside of Europe lack like that alleles that gives those apish looking skull shapes.

No, Africans have the highest genetic diversity because they are from the founding area of our species. As humans expanded, populations got thing so genetic diversity decreased as smaller populations traveled further.

>alleles that give...
Flat out retarded idea