It’s an old argument of nature or nurture. I would tend towards the nurture argument and with the black race in total collapse (from the “nurture” and societal angle) which ends up producing the kinds of societal misfits in which one sees such a significant number (i.e., “percentage”) of their males in prison, as compared to the rest of the population.
Apparently Watson thinks it’s in a gene. It appears to be (to me) in their (sub) society and its total collapse.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Apparently Watson thinks everything is DNA. He is right that blacks test lower than whites (and whites test lower than Jews and Asians)but it is unlikely that this is primarily due to genetic causes; but to societal and cultural differences.
If there was a gene (Watson admits that none such has ever been discovered) that unambiguously gave greater intelligence with not other detriments, what would stop it from reaching 100% in the population? All things being equal women usually go for the smarter guy, and the smarter guy usually wins out over his dumber competition. There might well be some ‘Poindexter’ gene, that gives greater intelligence but at the cost of physical prowess. But I think it is more likely that those without physical abilities nurture what abilities they DO have.
A black guy from Ethiopia came over to the U.S.A. and was working as a night guard at a building my dad was the engineer of. He used the time to study Economics at the University. He asked my dad “what is wrong with black people in this country?”; because he noticed what anyone who lives in D.C. notices; the urban ‘black’ culture there is the WORST.
Now if it was genetic and ‘out of Africa’, why would a pure African fresh off the boat be studying Economics while African Americans (many with European genes) are doing drive-by’s and selling crack on the street?