James Watson lost his job just for making an offhanded remark about this subject. He had to sell his nobel prize to stay afloat. And still gets a ton of shit for it whenever his name comes up. Even on this website. It's dangerous to have opinions about this.

Come now, Watson, when selling his medal, said he wanted to buy a painting and donate some of the money to charity [0], saying he needed it to stay afloat is disengenuous. If you can find support for Watson's statements, which he apologized for, regarding Africa's progress being correlated largely to their lower intelligence [1], I would love to explore it more.

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watso...

[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/10/watson-loses-cold-spr...

I read that he said he was selling it because of his severely diminished income, which is true. But I guess he had enough saved and it was just for charity.

It will be interesting to see how many people immediately accept the genetic influences on intelligence when it becomes possible to do something about it.

When safe, effective germline engineering for greater intelligence and health is possible, I predict that it will be embraced as enthusiastically by the majority of society as indoor plumbing was.

I am kind of disappointed by the community's response to his remarks.

Yes, some of them were quite inappropriate, such as:

>His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

However, after that he says:

>There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Now, this latter quote is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable presumption, considering that hundreds of millions of humans historically lived in a myriad of drastically different environments and circumstance. These genetic differences among populations (I'm not talking about the rigid contemporary interpretation of "race", I'm talking about geographical populations) do exist, and it would be absurd to presume that for some magical reason it wouldn't affect cognitive ability as well.

And yet people would still get emotionally triggered and shoot this hypothesis down, just because of the way they are socialized and because it strongly deviates from the mainstream idealization of equality.

Not related to this issue - reality generally is not simple, and I am sad that even contemporary developed societies nurture expectations that are so simplified, idealistic, fictitious instead of being more mature and grounded in scientific reality, regardless of the topic at hand. I just wish that more people were more educated and scientifically literate, and that this would translate into better, proper political positions, instead of the idiotic clusterfuck we have today.

Obviously, these concerns will be a thing of the past considering the future potential of genetic engineering to amplify intelligence, and presuming that eventually such services would be available to your average person.

He lost his job because he said some incredibly ignorant racist things and treats women like objects. He deserves all the shit he gets. Yes, it is "dangerous" to have opinions like that black people aren't as smart as Britons. Here's an "offhanded remark" -

>He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”

You are exactly the kind of person I am complaining about. Watson didn't even say anything about genetics in that quote, which is the most controversial aspect. Possibly a majority of the IQ gap is caused by environmental effects. But no one disputes the IQ gap exists, because it's easy to measure.

He singlehandedly wrote off an entire continent's intelligence while hinting that it was genetics. Furthermore IQ tests are bullshit - Feynman scored a 125 on them which doesn't even qualify him for MENSA.

IQ is not bullshit. It's incredibly well studied and respected academically. IQ correlates very well with just about everything from very different cognitive abilities to your success in life. Seriously do some research on an entire academic field before dismissing it out of hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) And read the rest of this thread for starters.

An IQ of 125 is well above average and puts him in the top 5% of the population. And on an individual basis, IQ tests have some degree of error and aren't perfect. But they are very useful statistically, especially on a population level where these errors average out.

>It's incredibly well studied and respected academically.

So was phrenology. This search for the g is just cargo cult science.

Phrenology never had any scientific basis whatsoever. G has enormous amounts of evidence supporting it. It has lots of predictive and statistical value, and would be easy to falsify if it didn't exist. Please actually research scientific fields before declaring them bullshit. This kind of ignorant science denialism doesn't belong on HN.

Lol okay pal have fun worshipping the "g" factor of a dude who thinks black people and the entire continent of Africa aren't as intelligent as others

They should be safe given that, um, race is not a scientific concept and has no genetic substrate.