It’s worth googling – “James Watson” Africa Intelligence – for a lot of articles on the controversy
Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts:
(1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations,
(2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and
(3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors.
(published 2008 Apr 28)
National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA
This article is complete garbage. Nothing more than pointing and sputtering and conclusion you don’t like A media studies professor commenting on an intelligence/economics paper? Haha, this is it’s such a transparent hit piece. Did you just take out the darts and hit on a liberal professor did service you with the quote you wanted? It’s almost like “reporters” just an editorial line and then go hunting for a mouthpiece.
Not a single substantial reason is given for the retraction of the first paper. It is simply outrageous that petitions from the public would result in a retraction of anything. Science is not some degenerate democratic process.
The appropriate mechanism is scientific falsification — write and publish another paper. You don’t get to memory-hole a paper you don’t like. This is Stalinesque rubbish.
What does it mean to be a scientist in a world that is trying to undo colonialism, systemic racism, sexism? How do you undo the systemic racism, sexism?”
The function of a scientist is scientific unbiassed research based on facts like the variation of IQ in peoples across the planet. A scintist should leave the other crusades mentioned to others or detach it from their work.
More knowledge about IQ and race should be harnessed to reduce systematic racism. We are all varied, equal human beings.
As a researcher and educational psychologist trained at UC Berkeley I am intimately acquainted with the IQ debate and can assure you all that, as Sarah Wild asserts, no one with any training in the field would dream of using IQ as a “national characteristic”. No one would even try to validate a cognitive measure such as non-verbal IQ, which is less culturally loaded, on a population-wide basis. The IQ test was designed to predict educational success on an individual basis. The idea that this construct was borrowed by an economist to demonstrate a historical theory is in itself dubious. The idea of a bunch of sports scientists dabbling in psychology and being taken seriously is alarming. If anyone’s capabilities is now under the microscope it is the authors, associates, and peer reviewers of these two studies.
this approach of removing certain terms such as IQ to discuss factors associated with a specific outcome is a weak attempt to cleanse science. we use socioeconomic terms to convey the same ideas. Population selection covers many sins. i’m more concerned about the hypothese that were being tested in the papers
——- genetic selection works in every animal except humans ? dogs breed true. horses, cows, cats, etc.
Proven Little wayne…some different humans of all sizes, shapes, nationalities, cultures, ARE Just as smart, Proven able and stable Minded. You seem a bit Questioned in your Question yourself as hmmmm lett’s be kkkkinnndddd and say…Lesser!!! Little wayney
I’m sorry, isn’t the title of this website UNdark? How is squashing scientific research within the spirit of your mission? If the findings are unsupported/easy to debunk, so be it, but I find it scary to declare that the very subject is taboo.
This is a truly funny argument, you are okay with false, misleading, and racist research being published and believe that when researchers debunk it people will say “oh I got it all wrong, thanks for debunking”. Have you been living in a cave? What happened when the link between vaccines and autism was debunked again and again and the paper was retracted? There is still an anti-vaxx movement and it is growing thanks to the use of debunked research. There are still people who believe that man never landed on the moon even with all the evidence to the contrary. You still read about people believing the Earth is flat even when the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was not flat. The goal of peer-review should be to weed out false, misleading, racist, and fake research before it even gets published because once it is out there it gets weaponized by people who seek to use it to oppress, alienate, and profit from it.
Because the article wasn’t retracted because it was false or misleading, it was retracted because its findings were determined to be racist. Like the research paper suggesting wider variance in male performance in mathematics leading to higher achievement at the top of the field, that was then retracted because the findings were declared sexist. The problem, my “friend,” is when we allow science to be quashed by our social values. This doesn’t strike me as the fake news issue you have framed it as.
I’m a bit unclear with your response. What subject do you feel is being declared taboo?
Truth is in the Translation. This is Not Truth it’s Bull poop. You need a helping spoon for your share.
Academics can try to sweep these papers under the carpet simply by screaming racism, but that in itself does not debunk the findings of these papers. I would always prefer to debate the findings scientifically than have them squashed by playing the race card and political correctness.
Hold up, so you believe that colored women have low cognitive functions or that the African countries where slavery existed were lower IQ. How come you feel this way? What research have you read to make you believe this? Have you lived with or engaged with colored women in South Africa?
I did not hear anyone screaming racism. I read an article that discussed people trying to pass off academic papers that used debunked science regarding out notions about race. I also read that one of the reasons they may have slipped through was because the reviewers subconsciously may agree with what they are reading. Look at it this way: I write a paper claiming that eating high fat ice cream is good for the health. I write it despite information to the contrary. I submit it for review and my reader is someone who is looking for a reason to eat ice cream all day everyday. It gets published. Reader and writer are happy. The ice cream board is happy. Does it now become true?
Right, because you read what you wanted to in this article. I read a piece on a research paper that was retracted, under the guise of unsupported research, that was really pulled because the findings were contrary to social norms.
Sip hi we we, your sickness of biases, stems from old sicknesses. Please get a grip on reality there is Not a shred of actual science in these lies and exaggerations of Untruthful sickness.
It may well take generations, if ever, or a major random event, to have racism eliminated. Or minimized .
Comments are closed.