Re: James Watson and the Monkey Test
- From: "Douglas Clark" <dgdclynx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:03:08 -0500 (EST)
"Douglas Clark" <dgdclynx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageDoes the new Wisconsin paper change everything? I printed it off but
I heard about the alledgedly racist comments of James Watson; I have
not read them but assume he holds the conviction "Whites" are more
intelligent than "Blacks". If that not be the case then please some
poster provide the proper context.
The article that caused the fuss:
"The elementary DNA of Dr Watson"
Watson isn't permitted to get a whole sentence out. Instead his comments
are presented as a patchwork of sentence fragments. These are then
juxtaposed with a quote from Watson's book - apparently to make it look
as though Watson thought the inequalities he was discussing had a
The resulting fiasco in the press has been capably analysed -
in the article:
James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences.
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
Thanks for posting this Tim. For me, after reading Flynn's new book, I am
prepared to accept his argument that environmental factors between
generations outweigh hereditary factors within generations. He extends
argument to explain much of IQ divergence although, obviously, some
inheritance cant be over-ruled. But much can be explained this way. I am
sorry that he doesnt discuss the case of the Ashkenazi Jews in the book,
the Chinese etc get some coverage. Re sub-Saharan I believe only a Founder
effect due to the tribe crossing into the Yemen (around 70-80,000 years
from whom we are all descended could be a last resort explanation. Re
US miscegenation surely rules out heredity as the basis of black/white
differences in the US. Flynn is kind to Jensen but says it is time to move
[Just a few thoughts from me. I approached the very disorganised and
rambling Flynn book with an open mind. But he does produce a solid
theoretical argument to chew on]
unfortunately it is too technical for me.