There's a lengthy article on
the Guardian website about the Watson affair [
Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low]. It contains quotations from Richard Dawkins and Oxford neurologist Colin Blakemore,
In the end, Watson's decided to return home, so no meetings occurred, a move that has dismayed many scientists who believed that it was vital Watson confront his critics and his public. 'What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police", of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation,' said Richard Dawkins, who been due to conduct a public interview with Watson this week in Oxford.
Dawkins's stance was supported by Blakemore. 'Jim Watson is well known for being provocative and politically incorrect. But it would be a sad world if such a distinguished scientist was silenced because of his more unpalatable views.'
I agree with Dawkins. Watson was stupid to make those remarks but they were perfectly consistent with a lifelong career of being as politically incorrect as possible in today's society. Does that make him a racist whose career should be terminated?
Nor is it at all clear that Watson is a racist, a point stressed last week by the Pulitzer-winning biologist E O Wilson, of Harvard University. In his autobiography, Naturalist, Wilson originally described Watson, fresh from his Nobel success, arriving at Harvard's biology department and 'radiating contempt' for the rest of the staff. He was 'the most unpleasant human being I had ever met,' Wilson recalled. 'Having risen to fame at an early age, [he] became the Caligula of biology. He was given licence to say anything that came into his mind and expected to be taken seriously. And unfortunately he did so, with casual and brutal offhandedness.'
That is a fairly grim description, to say the least. However, there is a twist. There has been a rapprochement. 'We have become firm friends,' Wilson told The Observer last week. 'Today we are the two grand old men of biology in America and get on really well. I certainly don't see him as a Caligula figure any more. I have come to see him as a very intelligent, straight, honest individual. Of course, he would never get a job as a diplomat in the State Department. He is just too outspoken. But one thing I am absolutely sure of is that he is not a racist. I am shocked at what has happened to him.'
This is a clear case of political correctness out of control. I'm embarrassed to be associated with the people who attacked Watson and I admire Dawkins (and Blakemore) for standing up to them.
There's a lengthy article on the Guardian website about the Watson affair [Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low]. It contains quotations from Richard Dawkins and Oxford neurologist Colin Blakemore,
I agree with Dawkins. Watson was stupid to make those remarks but they were perfectly consistent with a lifelong career of being as politically incorrect as possible in today's society. Does that make him a racist whose career should be terminated?
64 comments :
Well, if he's not a racist, why did he say the things he did? Someone ought to provide an explanation.
He's not a racist! He just doesn't like black people he's worked with. And he attributes this to their genetics!
HOOZAH!
I agree, let him face his critics. But give me a break, the guy's a dickwad.
I'm no fan of "political correctness" myself, and don't think there's anything wrong with calling blind people "blind" and not "visually challenged" or whatever the current pc term is, but calling black people less intelligent than whites isn't just "politically incorrect" -- it's racist. And assuming that Watson really does believe in the statement, then yes, he's a racist. That doesn't mean he is 100% a bad person (my own grandfather held similar views and he was a decent person), but I hardly think such a person ought to be in charge of a lab where his views might affect hiring practices.
See, if Larry thinks that psycholgy may not be a science...you can realize what kind of barbarian we have here. The symptoms of scientism are notable and clear for all to see: label human sciences as not really science (Larry obviously has no idea about developmental psychology)
It is not surprise that becuase of Larry's frivolous scientism, he will go to lengh to hide Mr. Watson's racism , rather than recognize the embarassing fact and acknowlegde its source: bad "evolutionary biology". The evolutionary psychology kind of thinking that Larry suddenly forgot all about; and that Wison and Dawkins are so fond of.
Watson's words are the result of the mixture of his personal prejudice with a poor, simplistic reductionist and adaptaionist way of explaining of evolution with little regard for justifying itself with evidence.
THIS is the root of the problem. The persona of Watson is actually not so relevant. He is the symptom of a decadence within science.
I really would like to be able to read this post differently, but I fail to understand how his comments weren't racist.
He claimed that white people were superior to black people. Unless one believes that is true, then we have no choice but to call his comment racist.
And it doesn't matter if Watson believes it--honestly held racist ideology is still racist.
That said, I agree completely that he was treated unfairly. I believe in giving everyone a platform so good ideas can be lauded and bad ideas can be roundly criticized.
"Watson's words are the result of the mixture of his personal prejudice with a poor, simplistic reductionist and adaptaionist way of explaining of evolution with little regard for justifying itself with evidence."
I'm quite certain it's a waste of time to respond to Sanders's crap, but: Wha...? If you want to be taken seriously (sometimes I wonder), you're going to have to sketch in that connection a little more clearly, dude.
Of course, I don't know Watson personally, but those who do are seemingly unanimous in saying that he has never expressed racist views in their presence.
Watson himself has said that a) he does not remember saying what is attributed to him, and b)if he did, he is personally "bewildered" as to why he would do so.
Will anyone else admit to the possibility that he was misquoted? I have not seen any reference to tape recordings of the alleged quotes, or any other source of evidence other than the reporter's claim in print. That's hearsay, not even good enough evidence for a court case.
Even granting that he was correctly quoted, to say, as he is alleged to have said, that testing suggests that group A is not as intelligent as group B is not in itself racist--it is not presented as a personal opinion or ideology but as an appeal to data. Given the huge overlap in "intelligence" scores between the groups in question and the issue of whether test results have anything to do with "intelligence" (let alone the question of how "intelligence" itself could possibly be defined), it strikes me as a pretty stupid thing to have (allegedly) said, but it is not necessarily racist.
The other alleged quote, about how anyone who has supervised employees of African ancestry knows this to be true, IS, I think, racist.
If he said it at all.
Will anyone else admit to the possibility that he was misquoted? I have not seen any reference to tape recordings of the alleged quotes,
The conversation was recorded. See here
"A spokesman for The Sunday Times stood by the interview, adding that it was recorded.".
It is also worth noticing that Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory didn't think it was worth challenging the comments as misquotes, which they no doubt would have had they thought they had a case; not only Watson's reputation is at stake but also that of the laboratory itself.
I used to think it was confined government and corporations, but I suppose even biologists have a good-ole-boy network, and they stick up for each other.
"A spokesman for The Sunday Times stood by the interview, adding that it was recorded."
...which is itself little more than self-serving hearsay, but I do appreciate the information.
As for CSHL's motivations, surely they are far more concerned with minimizing bad publicity than with finding and defending the Truth. They did not can him outright, they "suspended" him and then he "resigned." That was all about the media uproar and not at all about what was or wasn't actually said.
But I do not claim to know the truth either way, just raising some points that no one else seems ever to raise. I'm no big fan of Jim Watson's, that's for sure.
It's obvious. Watson's way of thinking is the evolutionary psychology kind of crap, to assume that an trait is there because of a genetic cause and a selective advantage. This facile mode of "evolutionary explanation" can indeed be learnt in a single afternoon.
Another symptom of how this cheap kind of thinking has permeated academia was the case of harvard's ex-president's comments about women. Or take the London school of economics... but no. Science must not be criticized. Watson must be protected. Everybody move, there is nothing to see here?
Watson probably does not dwell much on racisit thoughts but juts fell in the tras of this silly mode of speculation
Political incorrectness is the new political correctness.
Sanders said,
Another symptom of how this cheap kind of thinking has permeated academia was the case of harvard's ex-president's comments about women.
Exactly right. That's another example of political correctness destroying a person's reputation.
There are certain topics you just can't discuss these days unless you are willing to say exactly what people want you to say.
bullshit. If you say some kind of person is inferior for some genetic reason, without any evidence...don't act surprised if people get mad or do not want your face anymore for their institution.
It is just extra-extra stupid, and I do not encourage anyone to go down the "shock-jock" lane of Watson. That is no philosophy for science. That is stupidity and a mockery of science
actually more than having no evidence, watson's views have been long ago discarded.
Was Watson wrong to say the things he (apparently) did? Yes, because race is such an emotive subject he should have qualified his comments caefully and provided supporting data.
Were his critics wrong to say that race is ill-defined and intelligence is ill-defined therefore no differences exist? Yes, because there is enough data to support an informed debate, even if it cannot be finally settled at the moment.
What you do with the outcome of that debate is a political decision.
Larry:
The implication of your defence of Watson's position, as I understand it, is that he is simply following where the data leads - or perhaps even might lead - and that if that is politically incorrect, then tough.
If that were what he is doing, then I entirely agree with you. It is why I tend to argue that calling Darwin racist is Whiggish not because society has changed, but because the evidence, for whatever reason, led him to the conclusions he reached. The clue to that is that his view (and that of Huxley, who is also accused both of racism and sexism by poisoning-the-well creationists and IDCs) is that he did not think that such differences as apparently existed should affect one's treatment or attitudes towards the other "races".
The problem with deploying that defence for Watson is that not only is there little evidence supporting him, but he goes beyond such evidence as exists; he cannot plausibly be led by the evidence to the pretty stark conclusions he espouses.
Watson's opening salvo is that perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Africa has the difficulties it does, because our social policies are based upon equality of intelligence between the races and its people are, because of their genetic inheritance, less intelligent than Europeans and North Americans. He prays in aid "all the testing" that, he says, supports his claim; and claims that anyone who has had to deal with black employees knows that they are not up to white standards.
For social policies not to work because of differences in intelligence to the extent necessary to make an entire continent dysfunctional there would have to be not just a small difference on the average between the races, but a very substantial difference on the average and a limit on the intelligence of the most intelligent members of the supposedly less intelligent race. Can you name one study that supports that thesis? Remember his claim is not that just some or a majority of the studies support him; it is that all of them do so. My understanding, albeit IAALNAS, is that insofar as there is any evidence to this effect (i) it simply shows a slight shift leftwards of the bell curve, and (ii) it hasn't been shown to discount confounding factors such as socio-economic status.
As for working with black people - I've worked with a number, and my anecdotal "evidence" doesn't support his position either; does yours?
By the way - all this ignores the fact that the vast bulk of genetic variability in the human race resides in Africa - so one can hardly talk about "Africans" monolithically.
"It's obvious. Watson's way of thinking is the evolutionary psychology kind of crap, to assume that an trait is there because of a genetic cause and a selective advantage."
Purest bullshit, as (nearly) always. Watson's alleged statements (as stupid and/or racist as they are; I agree with Robin's comments above) not only imply nothing about adaptation (e.g. Larry would be quick to point out that any genetic differences between groups could be due solely to drift), but they don't even necessarily have anything to do with genetics. They are completely compatible with a nutritional or cultural explanation.
Robin Levett says,
The implication of your defence of Watson's position, as I understand it, is that he is simply following where the data leads - or perhaps even might lead - and that if that is politically incorrect, then tough.
No, that's not what I meant to imply. Watson has often said outrageous things and gotten away with it so he has begun to enjoy the process. Watson enjoys being politically incorrect just for the sake of it.
This time he made a serious mistake by poking at racism. That's a much more taboo subject and he should have realized that there would be consequences. It's sad that most people overreacted but I don't excuse Watson for being so dumb.
I have two main objections to the Watson affair. The first is the willingness of people to destroy an entire career by labeling someone a racist on the basis of a few intemperate comments. They do this even though those people who know Watson best say he's not a racist, and even though Watson apologized. That's one of the problems with political correctness. It's very unforgiving.
The second objection is that it brought a whole lot of people out of the woodwork to announce that there's no possible biological basis to race and even if there were it's impossible for different races to differ in IQ because there's no genetic component to intelligence. That's just nonsense. The only reason why somebody would say such stupid things is because of political correctness. When the fear of being labeled a racist begins to affect real science then I think it's time to stand up for science.
By the way - all this ignores the fact that the vast bulk of genetic variability in the human race resides in Africa - so one can hardly talk about "Africans" monolithically.
That's the common myth but is it really true? I don't know. There are a lot of Asians out there.
However, let's assume that it's true. Isn't it still possible to distinguish all those groups who are "non-African"?
Let's say for the sake of simplicity that there are only two of these demes: Asians and Europeans. How could we talk about the Asian and European demes without mentioning the rest of humanity? What do you think we should call that other genetically distinct group that's not Asian and not European? That's the group that's not Asian and not European and possibly has a lot more genetic diversity. Why not call them Africans? Do you have a better suggestion that's more politically correct?
(I think most people are missing the point about genetic diversity. Clearly the African deme does not have as much genetic diversity when it comes to eye color alleles and hair color alleles. This is what distinguishes one deme from another in biology. It will almost always be the case that one of the demes contains more genetic diversity for some alleles than for others.)
watson did not say any group was inferior to another, he said the distribution of intelligence in one group is shifted lower than in another. the distinction is important. if you think any group with a mean IQ higher than yours is "superior" to you, that's your problem, but I don't think that way and nor does Watson.
By the way - all this ignores the fact that the vast bulk of genetic variability in the human race resides in Africa - so one can hardly talk about "Africans" monolithically.
this is true (much variability was lost due to bottlenecks and drift as humans left africa), but African populations do tend to cluster together genetically (based on putatively neutral markers). here's a plot of 50+ human populations as you vary the number of clusters an algorithm assigns them to-- you can see that africans cluster together. And Larry is of course right that other markers (I'd call them non-neutral, but he might object!) show much more pronounced clustering.
hahaha ...look sven, you are acting like an idito, Fisrt you think it is possible that watson never said that...Ok, that was stupid enough. Now you want to say that Watson was not thinking about gentically detemrined differences in IQ between races... what can I say. You are being an idiot again. This is the favorite topic of evolutioary psychologists: the notion that some are just innately superior.
And yes, if someone tells me that his IQ may be geneticaly superior to mine without a shred of evidence, yes, I care. Moreover I care if this kind of baseless fallacy is said about anyone.
Enough of this stupidity. You guys can live happily ever believing in your innate intellectual superiorities and your chhesy-ass scientism
"That's the common myth but is it really true? I don't know. There are a lot of Asians out there"
Jeez. It's true, larry.
Now I see why you don't understand why the notions of race need to be revised.
You've got homework.
*shrug*
I admit, I only know what Watson was reported to have said, not what really happened, nor what he was thinking at the time. I must therefore yield to your omniscience. (Or, I guess, near omniscience, since you still don't know how to type, spell, or use the freakin preview button.)
Larry:
Watson enjoys being politically incorrect just for the sake of it.
He's not, in my view, "being politically incorrect" which suggests the virtue of trying to shake up thinking and stimulate valid scientific debate in a politically unpopular field; he's making scientifically unsupportable (unless you know different than I've said) and deliberately offensive statements in a field that has had plenty of study. With respect, you're making excuses for him on this point.
As to whether his career should be ended by this furore, I'm not so sure - although I do see the point that you've previously made that once someone has shown himself capable of lying about the science in one area, it is difficult to take him seriously as a scientist again; to quote you on Duesberg:
"Once you lose your scientific credibility you have lost it forever. We don't reward such people by continuing to take them seriously as long as they avoid the one topic where their lack of integrity is known."
Has he lost his credibility - on that I'm not sure. He hasn't helped his cause (and has robbed his apology of sincerity) by claiming to have been misquoted, when the interview was both recorded and conducted by one of his favoured protegées. At this stage, this looks like a flat lie.
If those close to him don't consider him racist, but the quotes reflect his views, then that says more about their own views than his.
As to the biological reality of race, that is a rather difficult question, surely? Cavalli-Sforza, I understand, has demonstrated pretty convincingly that there are clines in many apparently "racial" traits that lead to overlap. If one can say that those living in X share appearance traits with populatiosn to the west, but other significnat traits with populations to the east, and yet others with populations to the south and north, how meaningful is it to ascribe the tag "race" to that population. Race suggests a significant bundle of traits unique to a population, not a crosscutting sharing of traits with the populations around.
You went on to say:
"What do you think we should call that other genetically distinct group that's not Asian and not European? That's the group that's not Asian and not European and possibly has a lot more genetic diversity. Why not call them Africans? Do you have a better suggestion that's more politically correct?"
Yes, you can call them Africans - but since that group is genetically more diverse than both the other groups put together, then the description means something different when applied to that population than the description "Asian" or European". Again, none of the three groups are genetically distinct from any of the others. You can line the populations up by different traits and they will come out in different orders - and the traits will shade into one another to the extent that it is impossible to tell where one group ends and another begins, and any apparent dividing line you find by oen trait is unlikely to be duplicated in another trait. It might be easy to tell me from a Khoisan hunter-gatherer; but I have little doubt that I can line up a series of people, each indistinguishable by race from his immediate neighbour, between me and him.
I have two friends (with one of whom I have lost touch); one hails from India (call him Fred), the other has a (black) Jamaican father and a (white) English mother (call him Joe). Both are fencers; I can remember in a competition in which I was also fencing Fred was in my first round pool; and Joe in my second round pool. Someone in my second round pool who had also been in my first round pool accused Joe of being Fred using another name. Is racial appearance really so distinctive?
More generally, it is surely more meaningful to describe us all as Africans (some of whose ancestors left Africa earlier than others) and distinguish between populations more homogeneous for individual or bundles of characteristics?
Genes are required at a very fundamental, cellular level, but are insufficient for the development of even a normal intelligence. The cultural environment is required. This is demonstarted by the documented occurrence of feral children raised outside proper human educational and cultural environment.
The only genetic alterations that we know affect intelligence produce gross defects such as smaller brains and down syndrome. No genes are known to produce any increase in IQ scores.
Genes are necesary but act ony at a very basic level. This explains why no genes exist that determine any differences in IQ along categories such as race, gender, social class, profession, etc. At these levels of distiction, it is the cultural environment that is crucial, and there is inded no demonstrably significant genetic component.
Sven, adaptationism is always looming. Theoretically, greater selection for intelligence could lead to genetic differences of high IQ in the evolution of certain human populations.
For what my opinion is worth, I doubt that, whatever social and/or environmental selection pressures led to the evolution of human intelligence (and yes, I think an adaptive explanation is necessary for these giant brains), they would vary much among demes.
No genes are known to produce any increase in IQ scores.
you write as if you're intimately familiar with every area of biology. you're not. the association of CHRM2 is a likely true positive, and there's no doubt that larger, more exhaustive studies are coming soon.
Pfffft the usual crap.
Ten years from now they will still be saying such and such gene "may" confer inteligence. But genes with a consistent and notable effect in increasing IQ (like microcephalin is to lowering IQ) have never been found.
The increase in human brain size is not trivially explained as "selection for intelligence", specially if intelligence requires a cultural environment to develop.
*yawn*
What's YOUR explanation, Oh Omniscient One?
An adequate non-genetic, cultural evolution was necessary to "translate" the brain increase into an increase in intelligence. This continues to be the case. No culture and language, no intelligence.
remeber that we can make chimps speak sign language; not by selecting and breeding them , but by exposing them to language
Sven: The other alleged quote, about how anyone who has supervised employees of African ancestry knows this to be true, IS, I think, racist.
Yep - and I would have respected Watson more if he had either owned to it or denied it when he "apologised", instead of this "I'm baffled by what I said" nonsense.
Sanders: Sven, adaptationism is always looming. Theoretically, greater selection for intelligence could lead to genetic differences of high IQ in the evolution of certain human populations.
An argument from adverse consequences. Psshh.
By the way - all this ignores the fact that the vast bulk of genetic variability in the human race resides in Africa - so one can hardly talk about "Africans" monolithically.
"Vast bulk" only if you look at uniparental markers, I think. If you look at other neutral markers the difference is not as great, and might be still less for selected variation. Dogs are a subset of wolves under some markers, but that doesn't mean that the distinction between the two groups is meaningless (although fuzzy around the edges).
Race suggests a significant bundle of traits unique to a population, not a crosscutting sharing of traits with the populations around.
I'm not so sure. "Bundle of unique traits" might be the racist conception of "race" but this is not the way the word is used for other species in a biological context. I don't think there is a strict genetically or phenotypically non-overlapping definition of every tiger subspecies, for example. (I wouldn't define human races as subspecies: I would prefer to use the word 'race' for less differentiated groups than subspecies, although some use them as synonyms.)
Robin Levett says,
Again, none of the three groups are genetically distinct from any of the others.
Yes they are, Robin. You're trying to apply a non-biological definition to demes and it just won't work.
Different demes have different allele frequencies. That doesn't mean that one deme has all "X" alleles and the other deme has all "Y" alleles. It means that the frequency of "Y" alleles in one deme could be 25% while the frequency in the other deme is 65%.
That's what we mean by demes. It shows that the two populations are not part of the same interbreeding group. They have become genetically isolated so that gene flow between them is restricted.
Here's some data on the ABO blood type alleles [ABO Blood Types]. It shows the the frequency of the A, B, and O alleles varies within different geographically separated groups. South American natives, for example, are almost 100% type O. Africans as a group are different from native Americans. Until very recently they did not exchange alleles at any appreciable rate.
This suggests that there are a number of different genetically isolated population within our species. We would need more data to define them better but the point is clear. There is a biological definition of demes and according to this definition Home sapiens is subdivided into demes of various sizes.
Maybe this discussion would be easier to follow if we talked about another species? Check out the zebra subspecies at [Wkipedia: Zabra]. There are several different subspecies of Equus quagga. Each is found in a different part of Africa and they show slight differences in morphology and social behavior. There are invisible genetic differences as well.
These zebra populations are celled subspecies but they are demes, or races. They interbreed at the margins of their ranges producing hybrids that don't clearly belong to one subspecies or the other. That's exactly what you expect for biological demes.
Nobody questions the biology of zebra subspecies because it's such an obvious fact. But when it comes to humans we seem predisposed to deny those obvious biological facts because of the social implications. That's not right.
So, the evolution of a large brain MUST be explained as "genes being selected for intelligence"? Accept this reality, or be a PC maniac. Nice. Actually, idiotic. Like any trait, the evolution of the human brain is not explained by such simplistic and largely useless notions.
Larry do you seriously expect us to belive that we cannot really know if genetic differences of IQ cluster with race or gender, becuase of some PC ban that enforces a taboo on this research?
You may be way more simple-minded person than I thought, Larry.
Sanders:
If you read up on somatic selection theory and related models you may become better informed about human brain evolution. Purves, Deacon, Edelman, Hull. Selection and other feedback processes are critical in the generation of complex functional systems.
Yes, there were major regulatory changes, but an extreme nonadaptationist macromutational model is not plausible.
Dr. Moran:
Sure, there are identifiable populations (or races, if we insist on calling them that). But racialist claims about marked differences in genetic capacity for intelligence between groups have a lousy scientific track record. For example, microcephalin.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/01/aspm-and-microcephalin-dont-make-people.html
Some of those who accept racial differences in IQ are earnest and well-intentioned, if often naive. But others are not. Be wary of them and their claims.
The Pioneer Fund
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund
To continue the topic of my previous comment, selection at the somatic level facilitates Baldwinian evolution at the population level, in a feedback process with symbolic transmission and technological constructs.
Read about Richard Lynn's various claims. Preposterous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
I checked out one of the links to population IQs on a previous thread. Some of the populations had a 20+ point spread in the same age group. Nice replicability. Flynn effect - or invalid measure?
Tupaia
But racialist claims about marked differences in genetic capacity for intelligence between groups have a lousy scientific track record. For example, microcephalin.
a researcher found a gene he thought might be involved in intelligence. he then tested his hypothesis and found it not to be correct. that is hardly a "lousy scientific track record". that's simply science.
There was a reasonable hypothesis that the fossil remains labeled 'Ramapithecus' was a hominid. Additional evidence showed it was not. Normal science. Paleontology has not been discredited, just like genetics and neurology have not been discredited. But just like Ramapithecus was not a bipedal hominid, there is no good evidence for differences in intelligence potential between races.
I'm sure that you don't buy that. But can't we agree that some of Lynn and Rushton's ideas are far-fetched?
There has been more than a good chance to test; remember, racism, sexism, classism, were once the mainstream, practically undeniable. Those who dared to question them were downplayed as mystical or softies.Eugenics was widely encouraged and enforced. I think the nazis and others had a fair chance to attempt selection of intelligence, with no results. No "superace" was developed by anyone.
Some poeple who do not wnat to think about the biological realities of human brain development, and that have a mighty faith in the gene as well, can insist that we always need more and more testing. Yet this kind of "science" may well be comparable with regular reports that stones have not started falling upwards. The reason why intelligence is not genetic is because intelligence develops in a cultural environment. Genes make intelligence possible, but they are insufficient to develop intelligence.
Tupaia, is this somatic selection some crazy overinterpretation of the massive neuronal death in embryos? Jeez. Let me tell you, buddy, that we are talking about selection among individulas here, based on their differente gentic attributtes. In the brain, every cells has the same genome.
But enough of that completly off-topic crackpottery. I certainy won't go into reading about it, if you are to convince me otherwise, you will have to explin yourself a bit more.
Does that make him a racist whose career should be terminated?
I'm not sure if his career as researcher is terminated, as AFAIU he expects to remain working with the lab in question. That he (or Summers) are fired from representative posts when their employers have lost trust in their representing them is inevitable. "Political correctness" doesn't describe the trust element, nor do I think it is entirely applicable in such a case as the position is even more constrained.
I have to agree with Levett on Watson's possible statements.
"Bundle of unique traits" might be the racist conception of "race" but this is not the way the word is used for other species in a biological context.
Ah, I believe this gets to the heart of my own confusion when it comes to mapping what racists say and what biologists discuss. "Uniquely and phenotypically differentiated" vs "differentiated", gotcha. So lining up a smooth "cline" in character is a problem for racists, even if it doesn't necessarily map smoothly over populations.
can't we agree that some of Lynn and Rushton's ideas are far-fetched?
I haven't read either of them, and don't particularly intend to anytime soon.
a priori, I'd expect *any* heritable quantitative trait to have a different distribution between Africans and Europeans (because of bottlenecks and drift during the out-of-africa expansion, as well as selection for a new environment); I see no reason why intelligence, however you want to define it, would be an exception.
You will find the effect of drift on brain genes, but not on the phenotype (IQ): the variation in these genes will not produce variation in intelligence.
Anyone want to bet? I'm willing to make ten-year bets. It's very scientific.
My bet:
No genetic differences between races, regardless of whether they are due to drift or selection, will be found to produce differences in IQ.
Sanders says,
You will find the effect of drift on brain genes, but not on the phenotype (IQ): the variation in these genes will not produce variation in intelligence.
Sanders, even for you that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. It shows that you don't understand evolution.
Your statement is not based on science. It's based on political correctness. You don't want there to be a difference because you're afraid of the consequences. So what do you do? You just declare that such differences can't exist.
I wish life were that simple.
That's correct. What I am saying is that racial evolution has not produced genetic differences that affect IQ. You may call me stupid or entirely PC for doing so. Not at all. I ahve already given the scientific reasons above. But Larry, you don't really want to read nor think. If you really took in the significance of the occurrence of feral children, you would understand why is it that I can confidently make such statements.
My bet is still in place. Since you call my point of view stupid, Larry, I guess we have a bet, no?
plus, do you intend to present any actual scientific argument, instead of whining its all about PC ? Whinign about PC is not a good scientific argument for genetic differences in IQ, you know.
yor basic evolutionary misunderstanding, larry, is that evolution=genetic change, and then sticking to that defintion as if it were the holy grail to exclude any non-genetic process form evolution.
Howveer, may people understand that effrtos must be mad o indtroduce the importance of non-genetic factors to evolution (Piggliucci, west-Eberhard, badyaev, Oyama, etc etc). Evolutionary biology is changing, and you are staying behind. The evolutionary relevance of non-genetic phenotypic plasticity is evident (specially in relation to adpatation).
p-ter: "I'd expect *any* heritable quantitative trait to have a different distribution between Africans and Europeans (because of bottlenecks and drift during the out-of-africa expansion, as well as selection for a new environment)"
That's plausible if drift was a major determinant of IQ genes and variation in IQ was selectively neutral to a large extent. But I doubt that this was the case. In the model I favor IQ is driven by social Red Queen selection, with a ceiling of locomotory and and other developmental constraints. Even founder effect differences in IQ potential would be quickly reduced by subsequent selection based on universal intra-group competition and cooperation. (There are selectionist models that posit group differences rather than similarities in IQ potential, but these rely on socioecological hypotheses - the "harsh winters" scenario - that I regard as implausible and outmoded.)
Sanders, if you call my views on somatic selection crackpot, you realize that Varela also invoked ontogenetic selection during cognitive development. That is surely part of what he had in mind when he endorsed multilevel selection near the end of his life.
Tupaia
Sure. I would never agree with varela on that point. And others
so?...
But of course "phenotypic plasticity" is anything but "nongenetic." Reaction norms evolve by classical genetic mechanisms.
Sanders, you're such a sucker for false dichotomies. You really don't understand that intelligence almost certainly has both a genetic basis that differs among individuals (and therefore could theoretically differ among demes) AND a strong response to developmental environment???
but see, differential cell death and proliferation occurs in the embryo with no true significant resemblance to the way in which natural selection operates in populations.
So, if your only purpose is to say "see, SELECTION so beautiful and magnificent explains this too", I don't really care, you can be happy. But I am still left to wonder how at all does this prove that intelligence is the result of gene selection.
I don't doubt that selection constrains inteligence. The more necessary intelligence becomes for survival, any uataions that do not allow the development of intelligence will be eliminated. But this is very different form conceiving that selection for "intelligence genes" is the forefront and directing force of theevolution of intelligence.
Sanders asks,
My bet is still in place. Since you call my point of view stupid, Larry, I guess we have a bet, no?
Nope. There's no way for me to win the bet even though your point of view is stupid. You will always be able to squirm out of it.
Hehe. Than just why hacven't we found genes that increase IQ? Allwe have is crappy "maybe" speculation in fairly "militant" magazines...
Why, Tupaia, why?
I have alreday xplined everyting above but your theoretical prejudices just can't understand it, I guess. I have not proposed ay dichotomy as if I wre negating any role of genes. Genes are essential, yet they are insufficient to develop even a a normal intelligence, much elss to dtermine why some poeple have higher IQ than others.
Hehe. Than just why hacven't we found genes that increase IQ? Allwe have is crappy "maybe" speculation in fairly "militant" magazines...
Why, Tupaia, why?
I have alreday xplined everyting above but your theoretical prejudices just can't understand it, I guess. I have not proposed ay dichotomy as if I wre negating any role of genes. Genes are essential, yet they are insufficient to develop even a a normal intelligence, much elss to dtermine why some normal people have higher IQ than others.
Larry, If you can't place a bet on something as simple and clear as that...
I guess even you can realize how full of it you are right now.
Sanders, you fail to understand why I brought up somatic selection in the first place. These and related developmental processes provide for a great deal of robusticity, plasticity, and compensatory capacity.
My individual-level selection - social rather than ecological Red Queen under an upper constraint - argument was separate. However, brain developmental processes help explain how different allele frequencies could still produce similar distributions in potential.
Sanders, chum, you just need more selectionism in your paradigm.
So, I suspect, does our esteemed blog host. With all due respect to Dr. Moran, it is difficult to remain neutral about the fact that he is drifting into error.
Terrence Deacon:
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm
"Most surprisingly is that brains are not, it's hard to say this but, brains are not designed the way we would design any machine. They are not built the way we would build a machine. We don’t take the parts and put them together to build a whole. In fact, what happens is just the other way around. The whole starts out, it’s just undifferentiated. The parts aren’t distinguished from each other and they become more and more different from each other. The system becomes more and more complicated. The problem is the process is very indirect.
It is not like building something from a plan. It’s a very indirect process. It became very clear that this process is very much what we would call today, self organization. A lot of the information that goes into building brains is not actually there in the genes. It’s sort of cooked up or whipped up on the fly as brains develop. So, if one is to explain how a very complicated organ like the brain actually evolved, changed it’s function to be able to do something like language, one has to understand it through this very complicated prism of self organization and a kind of mini-evolution process that goes on as brains develop in which cells essentially compete with each other for nutrients. Some of them persist and some of them don’t. Some lineages go on to produce vast structures in the brain. Other lineages get eliminated as we develop, in some ways just like a selection process in evolution."
It is not like building something from a plan. It’s a very indirect process. It became very clear that this process is very much what we would call today, self organization. A lot of the information that goes into building brains is not actually there in the genes.
Self-organisation does not disprove a genetic component any more than phenotypic plasticity.
Compare to this example: humans need to learn how to walk, so we could say that walking is not "actually there in the genes". Yet human bipedalism obviously has a very large genetic component. Development and genetics aren't opposites.
"Some lineages go on to produce vast structures in the brain. Other lineages get eliminated as we develop, in some ways just like a selection process in evolution"
Well, yes. As in evolution, you look at it a posteriory and can describe what has happenned as if a selection has taken place.
But, a process of selection has intrinsic limits to what it can do that make it an insufficient explanation for biology at almost any level we may wish to observe, ontogenetic or evolutionary. Selection as a theory of development is utterly insufficent, and of course, it is insufficient as a theory of evolution.
Further I fail to see how all this somatic selection theory has illuminated the question of whether genetic intelligence differs among races.
"humans need to learn how to walk, so we could say that walking is not "actually there in the genes". Yet human bipedalism obviously has a very large genetic component"
No so strong as to not be overcome by the environment. Feral children have been documented that walk on all fours.
"Development and genetics aren't opposites"
Truly so. They are completley complementary: by this I mean that genetics is useless without development as much, and no less, as it is vice-versa.
To know whether a gene will have an effect on the phenotype depends on understanding development questions, such as how other genes in the developmentla background (epistasis) can change the effect of a gene, or whether the environment can affect the trait, hiding or enhancing the effect of the gene.
Juts considering as if genes had their isolated effect and did not interatc with eahc other in development is what drove Ernst Mayr to the critical view of "bean bag genetics". The connection to the henotyoe is missing. To have any meaningful case discussion in evolution we must study the genotype-phenotype relation (that is, development).
Than just why hacven't we found genes that increase IQ? .
I know this is pointless, but I'll still provide a link to this highly suggestive study.
"The strongest association was between rs324650 and performance IQ (PIQ), where the T allele was associated with an increase of 4.6 PIQ points. In parallel with a large family-based association, we observed an attenuated - although still significant - population-based association,"
Gene governs IQ boost from breastfeeding
First: I do not think that breastfeeding DETERMINES a small increase in IQ. Not in the way we can say that trisomy 21 determines down syndrome. We say a process is determined when the outcome has become inevitable, not when on average we find a statiscal correlation: THAT means that for any given individual, having this or that gene, or being breastfed or not, does not mean he/she will or will not have a slightly higher IQ.
Similarly, a gene cannot be said to be determinant of an increase in IQ if its effect depends directly on the environmental context, as in the proposed mechanism in this case: if no one got breastfed, genetic differences should have no effect of increasing IQ.
In all, this gene can hardly be said to determine an increase in IQ. I am willing to admit that a slight effect of nutrition and the capacity to digest brain-building foods may indeed help to develop IQ; without dterminening it. A person who was never breastfed can have a highr IQ than a non-breastfed personw it with the "optimal" gene.
P.D.we have to wonder what is the relevance of other factors associated with breastfeeding that we know affect brain development, specially, tactile contact with the mother, which is essential for the development of nomral behavior as shown experimentally in several species of mammals; it has also been shown that puppy-licking in mice produces extensive gene methylation in the brain
For the love of Mike....Look, guys, Racism is Judging INDIVIDUALS by their race, not making statements about general tendencies of a particular race. BIG difference. I can say, White people are horrible conquerers who use disease to kill off indiginous populations and take their land, but does this mean I think that Steve, the guy I know down the block is going to sneak a smallpox infected blanket into my house, and kill my kids in their sleep? Saying there is a difference in general IQ scores between to groups (or other words to that effect)is NOT racism. It is an interpretation of the data he has seen. If he then said 'therefore Nelson Mandela is a moron" that would be racism.
Post a Comment