Ignorant, Racist, Bigoted, Stupid, White Supremist HILLBILLIES!

United States
October 17, 2007 12:45pm CST
Yes, it is true. Ignorant, Racist, Bigoted, Stupid, White Supremist HILLBILLIES must have learned accidently the secrets of mind control! How else does one explain this story? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/nwatson117.xml A Nobel prize winning genetist remarks that races from Africa are mentally inferior? We know there could not be any validity to his statements. So, which is it? Has he lost his mind, or was it taken over? Is it really all just the fault of those ignorant, racist, bigoted, stupid, white supremist HILLBILLIES? Durn'em and their infernal mind control machine. What's your opinion?
4 people like this
8 responses
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Oct 07
Hello Redyellowblackdog, Well, I guess we'll just have to wait the 10-15 years to see if Dr. Watson is correct, or if he actually was abducted by ignorant, racist, bigoted, stupid, white-supremist, Hillbillies. While we wait, we might consider that Dr. Watson's inflamatory remarks might just prompt certain groups and individuals to prove him wrong. What a welcomed day that would be! A little reverse psychology has been shown to produce amazingly positive results. The one sentence that I find particularly intriguing is: "However, opponents argue IQ tests are culturally biased and say lower average scores among blacks can also be explained by social rather than genetic factors." The burning question is: And, what are those opponents doing to counter any such social factors that may have lead an internationally renown molecular biologist to erroneously label as genetic deficiency? Hmmm, has anyone ever considered the impact of sustained nutritional deficiency on intellectual development? One undeniable, underlying failure of any comparison between Africans, and Europeans, is the premise: all things being equal ....
2 people like this
• United States
17 Oct 07
"Hmmm, has anyone ever considered the impact of sustained nutritional deficiency on intellectual development?" This is an extermely valid point. So, is the one concerning removing culturally biased factors. All things considered, I believe the passage of time is going to resolve these problems as evolution works its wonders. We can not stop survival of the fittest.
3 people like this
@Zorrogirl (1481)
• South Africa
17 Oct 07
btw, the smart zimbabweans drove away all the white farmers. now theres an extreme food shortage. same is happening in south africa.
3 people like this
• United States
18 Oct 07
"Same is happening in south africa." Yes, it is. It will be interesting to see if anyone in leadership at SA cares enough to learn from what happened in Zim. Based on my experience and study of thuggery, I would say there are people who do not care if they ruin a country, impoverish millions, and destroy a culture. As long as THEY ARE IN CHARGE.
1 person likes this
@Drakhan (241)
• United States
17 Oct 07
I know I'm going to get my head handed to me for this but I think he may be right about Africa for the wrong reason. Africans will score lower on standardized IQ tests than Europeans but that's largely because of cultural bias in the test design. I'm white and my IQ ranges from a low of 132 to a high of 178 depending on which test I take. That being said, attempts by liberal white Westerners to help Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America will almost always fail because they all start with the logic that everybody in the world who has a brain things exactly like a liberal white westerner. And they don't. I still laugh when I remember my misspent youth in South America. It was truly hilarious to see people trying to grasp why things that worked so well in Manhattan apartment didn't seem to get results at all in the middle of a Venezuelan rain forest.
2 people like this
• United States
17 Oct 07
"That's largely because of cultural bias in the test design." This was true up until the 1970's. At that time culturally bias free tests were developed. Other tests are designed specifically for certain cultures. Some are even administered to babies and are non verbal. IQ testing is now quite advanced and much more fair than it was at one time. The results of this improved testing? You won't hear it from me! You can look this up, but it takes some real digging. People who do this research expecting a particular result are often disappointed as to what they discover and fearful of publishing the result. Hence, the results are hard to find.
3 people like this
• United States
17 Oct 07
"I know I'm going to get my head handed to me for this but I think he may be right about Africa for the wrong reason." Yours is a pretty reasonable answer really. I'll admit it is a controversial subject and one is likely to draw "flames" no matter what one says. So, don't sweat it. Thanks, for having the courage to tackle a touchy subject.
3 people like this
@urbandekay (18314)
17 Oct 07
Cultural bias my ar*e, what about malnutrition? all the best urban
@Zorrogirl (1481)
• South Africa
17 Oct 07
do you live in africa? i do. i think dr watson should first widen his studies to other races as well. he should give the same IQ test to amazon people, billy-bob in arkansas and eskimos. but i also think theres more to his theory. i am not a racist but i am very dissapointed in africans this week.
2 people like this
• United States
17 Oct 07
I is her'in to tell'use that we ins arky hillybillyies is too stupeed to even keeps a myLot star rating! Africans are geniuses compared to me and my buddies.
2 people like this
@Zorrogirl (1481)
• South Africa
17 Oct 07
ps. they burn schools down because they are unhappy at the weather. gov builds it again. they burn it down again because the teachers strike. gov has no money left to build the school again. they go and burn down the local mall because they are unhappy. intelligent hey?
2 people like this
• United States
17 Oct 07
Well, those of us like yourself who are in a good position to see what is going on should be listened to, is what I think.
2 people like this
@laylomo (166)
• United States
18 Oct 07
Ironic. You wish for Watson to stop generalizing, but you blame "ignorant, racist, bigoted, stupid, white spremist HILLBILLIES" for brainwashing him. See the hypocrisy? Hillbillies is a term for those who inhabit remote, rural, mountainous areas (widely used in America for those who live in the Appalachia), not synonymous to redneck or racist. The articles seems to frame the thought that Watson is a racist. Yes, I do agree that he has no tact. He's one of those people who will use science to justify racism, which is not what a true scientist should do. But his theory is nothing new - it's been proposed various times throughout history. The theory of different races having different features has been scientifically proven. For example, African athletes who hail from certain areas of Africa have longer calves than their European or Asian counterparts. This is proof that different races have differences in the way we are born. The scientist was attacked for saying such blasphemous and racist comments. All he did was measure the calves of Africans, Asians, and Caucasians. Intelligence is also something along the same lines. It's a shame many scientists are fearful of doing studies on the differences between races because of the heat, as seen by the authors of the Bell Curve. As long as there is scientific proof, studies shouldn't be attacked. It's how people use this information that should be questioned, not the study itself. But yes, he is a racist old man - important to the field of DNA study, but nevertheless racist.
1 person likes this
• United States
18 Oct 07
"It's a shame many scientists are fearful of doing studies on the differences between races because of the heat, as seen by the authors of the Bell Curve. As long as there is scientific proof, studies shouldn't be attacked." You win! That's the point I was making. Why do you suppose I started the discussion with the ridiculous notion of hillbillies (BTW: I'm a hillbilly in Arkansas) having a mind control machine? Humor can be used to approach otherwise untouchable subjects.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Oct 07
Hello All, I'm not so arrogant as to speak for Redyellowblackdog. However, as I read both the post and the article, I see no hypocrisy in the post, only in the article. I personally perceived both sarcasm and irony in the post's title. As Dr. Watson states himself, the jury is still out on his theory. However, based on Dr. Watson's field of expertise, he has indicated that he has (some unnamed) reason for believing that there is an inequity between the intelligence quotient of Africans and Europeans. Yet, if you read the article carefully, the author makes no mention of the length of time, nor the research effort behind Dr. Watson's unproven supposition. The first two paragraphs briefly explain who he is, that he has written a new book, and that he has expressed a controversial supposition. Then, the article begins to quote other opinions, from varying scientific fields, that lambaste Dr. Watson for being so politically incorrect. Of course, there's no data presented that provide any conclusive evidence that Dr. Watson is incorrect. As mentioned, the jury is still in deliberation. What I find truly controversial is that the article fails to give the reader adequate overview of Dr. Watson's reasoning and motivations for releasing this supposition now. It only provides outside speculation that he is attempting to drum up controversy to sell his new book. Before I conclude that Dr. Watson is a racist, I would first like to learn what has drawn Dr. Watson to this supposition, AND what his motivation is in releasing his speculation now are. Based on the article content, the author presents none of Dr. Watson's underlying reasoning for the perceived inequity. Only a 'preponderance' of opinion that Dr. Watson is a racist. Now, Dr. Watson may or may not be a racist. We, the reader of this article, simply do not have enough information to reach that conclusion. Laylomo may be more familiar with the man, and his work than I. In which case, I welcome any other references Laylomo or others, may be familiar with. What we can reasonably conclude is that based on Dr. Watson's historical track record, that he is most likely familiar with the Scientific Process (a reasonable conclusion given his participation in the early, groundbreaking DNA work?). What I'm suggesting is that we should all (most especially the author) remember that Science always begins with observation and supposition. Followed by the effort to prove or disprove the supposition. Regardless of whether Dr. Watson's supposition is accurate or not, his having made his supposition public serves the function of initiating the next steps in the Scientific Process -- the fury to either prove or disprove his supposition. I didn't perceive Redyellowblackdog's descriptive title as any more than a shot at all parties: the journalist, the other scientists's, and perhaps Dr. Watson himself for little more than assumption, generalization and opinion as presented in this particular article. If I'm mistaken, I'm happy to 'eat crow'. However, if I've correctly gleaned Redyellowblackdog's intention, then I think it's hardly fair to suggest that he is being hypocritical.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Oct 07
Thank you for the clarification Redyellowblackdog. I began writing my above retort, then was called away, before your reply. I'm glad I'm not eating crow this morning -- I had my heart set on an omelet.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
19 Oct 07
Hello Redyellowblackdog, I'm not sure whether you've seen this or not, but I thought I'd share the link. This is a follow up to the recent article about Dr. Watson. http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3075664.ece
1 person likes this
• United States
19 Oct 07
Thank you for the link. I read the article there carefully. Dr. Watson has not said a single thing which should be controversial to thinking people with at least average reading comprehension.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Oct 07
Agreed!
• Thailand
20 Oct 07
I was watching BBC news tonight, They had a piece on Dr. Watson. It is amazing how quickly he is back peddling at this point. His position now seems to be that he did not say what he said. The sad thing about this is the comfort that it gives to racists. I have worked in sub-Saharan Africa and found that there is nothing slow about African people. At the time I was there, in the early 60s, they were labouring under a huge handicap. In the Congo, where I was, there were only two high school graduates. Belgium was probably the worst of the colonial powers, but the others were not far behind. They looked at the indigenous people as a workforce to do the grunt work, but did not want to educate them "above their station." Sadly, the colonial powers have now been replaced by a corrupt ruling class. If the African can ever free himself of the yoke of oppression, I think, we will be amazed at what they can accomplish. I hope I live to see them have the chance.
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Oct 07
I'm quite sure the Africans can accomplish more than what they have. Free themselves from the yoke of oppression? That's going to be easier said than done. Even in the USA, we are not nearly as free as we like to pretend. As to Dr. Watson being racist, I'm of the firm opinion that everyone who can objectively reason is a racist, but for sure not a bigot. Evolutionary theory specifically predicts there is going to be differences of members of the same species separated from one another for a long time by time and distance. If there are differences, some of those differences will be superior or inferior in different circumstances. Given how long large numbers of humans were separated before international travel became common, how could anyone with a brain not be a racist? Note, I differiate between racist and bigot. Now that international travel is common, at some time in the future, race will all but disappear, but it will be a long time.
@kamran12 (5556)
• Pakistan
20 Oct 07
Hello redyellowblackdog!:-) I Hope you don’t mind me popping up with different perspectives!:-) I haven’t read the research of Dr. Watson, so I can’t really comment on it unless and until I see the work. I, however, see that people put too much stock in IQ. I personally don’t think that IQ is an objective measure of someone’s intelligence. There are too many factors that govern our score on IQ test, however balanced it may be. There was some user here who questioned whether religiosity causes lower IQ or is it that lower IQ people choose religion. You can read my response here: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1164060.aspx?p=2 (#14) As I said that I can’t directly comment on Dr. Watson’s work before reading it, however if lower IQ should be taken as basis for conclusion that it’s genetically so, then following conclusions can also be made: 1. Females are genetically inferior to men in terms of intelligence because their average IQ score is 3-4 points less than males as some researches have shown. However men’s IQ range is wider i.e. they cover both the lowest and highest IQ ranges while females remain in between. 2. Americans are genetically inferior to Europeans who further are inferior to East Asians, especially Japanese, Hong Kong, South Koreans etc since East Asians have highest average IQ scores in the whole world. There is a considerable difference between IQ scores of East Asians and Americans (7-8 points) However, I won’t believe the above conclusions for my own reasons. My partner has a very high IQ, She will beat me up, so don’t tell her what I said in point 1, LOL! Joke aside, The reason why I don’t take IQ that seriously is because it is already a controversial measure of intelligence which doesn’t take into account many factors as yet. One of the most important factor, that I think, is exposure and environment. If two brothers are brought up in different countries or environments such that one has the best exposure, a child can get, and the other has the least, keeping all other things common, I believe that the brother who has best exposure will score higher than the other. The reason for my belief is that, generally, a city child scores higher than a villager. There are other factors like nutrition, law and order, family issues etc. A cool and calm mind will definitely score higher than a disturbed one. Similarly, within the same ethnicity, there is a large disparity in IQ score based on what social class, region and group one belongs to or even if someone belongs to a discriminated class e.g. lower caste Hindus in India score lower than higher caste Hindus. In Britain, Irish and Scottish have lower IQ scores than English and in Northern Ireland, Protestants score higher than Catholics. More interesting is Israel where Jews score higher than Arabs and within Jews, western Jews score higher than Eastern Jews. Indians and Pakistanis who have a chance to good education score higher than Americans and Europeans (about 10% of Indians and Pakistanis that I know here have scored above 150, 50% above 130 and 40% above 115, there is only one who scored 105 which is still above average). There is also another interesting point. The world average IQ score is falling, though very slowly. In 1950, it was about 91.64 which has come down to 88.76 in 2007 and projected average IQ for world in 2027 is 87.70. Also, Intelligence itself can’t do anything unless it is combined with other factors. After all, America is a super power despite having lower IQ than East Asians and Europeans. Even USSR had even lower average IQ than many of the poor and failed states. Let’s just hope for a more intelligent world!:-)
@kamran12 (5556)
• Pakistan
20 Oct 07
I forgot to mention another important point that IQ varies quite a lot within a single family. If one member scores 80, it is possible that the other will score above 150. In my own family I have highest score and my younger brother has just above average on same test, while I believe that he is more intelligent than myself, and I really don't understand why he scores less. Similarly, I score a little higher than my partner, yet she amazes me by her intelligence. Similarly, there is difference in general IQ scores between different people of different professional fields. Mathematicians and Engineers usually score higher than social scientists while I don't believe that they are any less intelligent. This whole set of data makes me believe that IQ is not an honest and objective measure of intelligence as such. There are a whole lot of researchers who have dismissed, generally, the idea of genetic influence on IQ. They attribute it to other well deserved factors. Anyways, It will be a learning experience, perhaps, to look into what Dr. Watson has to say!
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Oct 07
Different perspectives are always welcome. In this particular instance we pretty much agree. I studied IQ somewhat in graduate school. I will concur that you have your facts correct. As to the asians not having the place in the world that one might expect given their superior IQ, I say, "Just be patient. They are going to dominate the world.". Being a dominate world economic power takes time and the asians came late to the game. They already have made more progress in less time than anyone ever has. I fully expect asia to dominate the globe 200 years in the future much like europe did 200 years ago in the past. Maybe sooner!
@anniepa (26441)
• United States
17 Oct 07
Wow! I sure don't know how else to explain this story. However, my guess, and it's only a guess since I was terrible in science, that there are many factors contributing to the intelligence and IQ of people from different cultures and geographical locations. Environment (social and physical), nutrition, physical conditioning or the lack of it, I'm sure there are many others I'm not thinking of or am not aware of. I'm a WASP from Pennsylvania; what does that make me? Annie