Just look at any major university in the Midwest or Northeast. If these guys didn't have such a thing as tenure, they're be on the street corner with a can of pencils. 
Posted on 10/17/2007 1:36:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
I don't think conservatives are the same as the left, but as Americans we fundamentally want to believe that we are in control of our own fate, that the individual (conservatives) or the government (liberals) can create a good life if they work hard enough or pass the right programs. The idea that some people do not have the innate cognative ability to lead a productive life in modern American society is something that no one wants to accept.
Thank goodness, James Watson is a self professed Democrat.
This attempt at intellectual compartmentalization is a rationale for evil. Science and morality and compassion MUST mix, or else you have Dr. Mengele or Dr. Peter Singer or abortion "doctors".
Accepting the thrust of your argument that it is difficult to fairly compare dogs (who have been selectively bred) and people (who have not), I rather think that your response goes a long way toward proving my point.
Dog breeds are, in many respects, a “controlled experiment” and, as you have rightly pointed out, their traits and appearances differ widely as a result.
People are an uncontrolled experiment — roughly equivalent to mungrel mutts in the “dog-world”, if that makes any sense. So with people we are definitely not dealing with purebred breeds.
Beyond that, my analogy applies absolutely: it is all in the genes, and the answers lie in the ancestors. You will not get a smart pup from a long line of dumb parents. As with dogs, so with people.
This is not news.
This very same assertion was made and scientifically supported in “The Bell Curve.”
So What? We’re talking huge numbers, and small differences here. Just because the average for one group is higher or lower means almost nothing WRT any individual.
Just look at any major university in the Midwest or Northeast. If these guys didn't have such a thing as tenure, they're be on the street corner with a can of pencils.
Al Sharpton
If we accept the old adage that we are all only using about 1/3 of our brain capacity, this would leave a lot more room for improvement than people usually give others credit for.
I had the mixed privilege of growing up in the 40s-50s as a stereotyped white female who was destined to become "a mommy." When feminism hit the mainstream in the late 60s, it was immediately seized upon by certain men to free them from responsibility, leaving in their wake the females underprepared for a lifetime of earning (women still haven't made up the wage gap). I was already in my 20s, with my education, I thought, behind me.
Only after a divorce did I learn that I am intelligent, and only by trial and error, since employers backlashed against the first, pioneering women who tried to advance at work. But I had to make a living, as do many other women; it wasn't hard to see who was productive and innovative and who wasn't. But the difference in rewards was also clear: mostly men and some of the young, attractive woman got more of them, regardless.
So encultured was the inner script that men are the naturally superior and dominant sex, that I was in my thirties before I began to read an article by an unidentified author and "hear" a female voice instead of a male voice in my head.
When I paid for my own graduate studies in my 40s, while running a business and raising a family, I graduated at the top of my class. Why? I had by that time learned that I could never take any equality for granted and must always work twice as hard to get half as much. And I certainly did not receive the job offers or business helps my male counterparts received.
Why have these experiences been any part of a privilege? Because they have taught me unequivocably that people can judge unfairly, both overestimating and underestimating others based on superficial characteristics or preconceived notions. I don't think I would have gained this insight if I had been a socially-equivalent white man of high intelligence who had been given the benefit of the doubt in all the situations where I was discounted.
It is of small material comfort to have learned these things; and moral superiority is a sin; perhaps I can hope for a reward in heaven. :-)
As regards this discussion, I have learned that Jesus was right, you can be transformed by the renewing of your mind. You can grow and learn throughout your life. It's never over 'til it's over. Therefore, I reject the notion of racial or gender stereotyping as regards intellectual capacity.
He didn't need to, because to anyone who has even a minor familiarity with the subject knows that is how the data is expressed and what the data shows.
Good grief--the man is a top physical scientist. Do you honestly think that he is ignorant of basic statistics.
And just as an aside-he used neither the words "African" nor the word "European". There are scads of people of caucasoid ancestry that are not "European".
Amen to that. Here's an excellent book on that topic by an African-American scholar of note:
> But can the same illiterate Aborigine be put into a modern university and learn calculus, French literature etc. in the same time span as an university student takes to learn to survive in the outback?
I suspect it would take the university student longer than 3 days to learn how to survive in the Outback: it is a hostile and inhospitable environment, and after 3 days left to his/her own devices s/he would probably be dead. French literature and the calculus would be of no use, unfortunately.
You may well be correct that macroevolution did not occur. I'm an evolution skeptic, in fact. However, natural selection does occur and it occurs whether macroevolutionary theories are true or not. All it would take to create the multiple races we see on earth is natural selection. Evolution wouldn't be required at all.
They had to come from somewhere, didn't they? You could turn to theology and say that God created different races, but if He did so, wouldn't He provide them with the capabilities for surviving in their particular area? If the races are identical and interchangable, why create more than one?
In this post, not going much into the ideas about European men, but while they don't seem stupid on average, then don't seem to be particularly intelligent either; they seem....average.
Average compared to what? If race and IQ aren't in any way connected, your argument is incomprehensible.
Have seen plenty of stupid and intelligent people from various 'races.'
True, but irrelevant. I've seen tall women, too, but if a task required a height of six feet to be performed properly I wouldn't expect nearly as many women to be able to perform it as men.
But, why must the Australian fail? He could stand a fair chance of materially succeeding in his new country.
I didn't say he would fail. An individual Australian might well succeed in Finland. But I wouldn't place any money on the prediction that if Finland was, let's say, 15% Australian, that that 15% would make it into med school in the same proportion as Finns. Are you aware of any place on earth where it is otherwise? Is there a place where blacks are the scientific and intellectual elite, and whites need affirmative action to try to keep up? Is there a place where blacks are 25% of the population and also 25% of the people who get into the top tier university PhD programs based on race blind admissions?
You mention European colonization of Southern Africa. They were supplied and protected by Europe, first the Netherlands, and then the United Kingdom. They were not on their own. They imported their own, already invented, technology and moved on from there. If a Finn moved to the Outback, he would probably be able to pick up aborigine technology, whereas an aborigine in Finland might not as readily pick up cell phone electronics (Nokia is a major part of the Finnish economy), but then again, he might. Neither show a sign of particular intelligence, merely recognition of a technology, and the ability to access it.
And that technology came from where? From back on their home continent where they invented it. The question is, why didn't the native Africans invent steam engines?
Hence the old saying, "If you would make a gentleman, start with his ancestors."
On the other hand, those of European ancestry conquered much of the world. The entered forboding jungles and empty deserts. They crossed the oceans and the poles, and went to the moon. Many died in the process, but they ultimately succeeded.
CORRECTION: On the other hand, those of European ancestry conquered much of the world. They entered forboding jungles and empty deserts. They crossed the oceans and the poles, and went to the moon. Many died in the process, but they ultimately succeeded.
I hate typos! :-)
Well, maybe. I'm pro-life so I'm opposed to anything of that nature. Of course, egalitarians are largely responsible for the current abortion holocaust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.