Re: DNA pioneer James Watson suspended in farcical race row

inmanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:37 pm, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK) wrote:

Not that simple, apparently. The most serious criticism of "this and
that IQ" science comes simply from stating that IQ tests are biased.
As an example:http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/fagan-holland-2007.pdf

This is beyond my most remote expertise, so I have hard time
evaluating the paper and its conclusions, but as a plain Joe Sixpack
on the street, I can't really understand how math tests can be
culturally biased (the infamous "achievement gap" is as big in
math as it is in verbal scores). Anyone?

Between say the 9th and 17th centuries CE, a maths test that used the
concept of negative numbers could be tackled by people in the Arab and
Chinese worlds, but would leave Europeans perplexed. Nothing to do
with their genetics -- I suggest -- and rather more to do with
different cultural backgrounds.

Sorry, this is not serious. I was talking about groups of people who
are taught exactly the same cncepts in schools and everyday life
and tested against a set of varying math tasks. You provide an
example of a singular concept that was simply unknown to
one group at the time.

Still, it seems that as it stands now, the non-controversial scientific
fact is about IQ scores but how they correspond to what is vaguely
referred to as "intelligence" is still an open question.

'Intelligence' can refer to
(1) the number coming from some specific IQ test under some specified
conditions
[objectively measurable, repeatable, results will depend in part on
how cultural bias of the specific test relates to cultural background
of person tested, not applicable to animals]
or (2) the flexible ability to adapt to changing circumstances
[subjective, not measurable, cultural differences in use of term,
applicable to animals]
or (3) [value-laden] term of praise, opposed to 'stupid' [term of
abuse]
or (4) ...
or (5) ...

I prefer American Heritage Dictionary:

1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.

Quite obviously, only these meaning are relevant to the
subject at hands. (So I omitted others).

[Quote:]
That black people today tend to have lower intelligence than
white people is a simple, well-known scientific fact,

Nonsense. Even if your working assumption is,

Except this is NOT a quote from anything I said!

My position is simple: At present, we don't have a *solid* data
pro or contra the thesis that people of different large populations
("races", "blacks", "Jews" - what have you) possess innately
diffirent intellectual capacity. However, based on my knowledge
of biology and genetics, I see absolutely nothing that precludes
the possibility that this thesis will eventually be shown to be
correct.

As such, Watson was crucified for 1) voicing his *opinion* on
an unresolved scientific issue and 2) clumsy choice of words.
Nothing else. In a free society, none of that should be a crime.

DK

.