gbaji wrote:
I simply did not automatically condemn Watson's statements purely because they bucked conventional politically correct thinking.
Me neither. I condemned them because they were overly generalized and poorly supported.
Quote:
Like I said before, that's politically incorrect, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. I just tend to be bothered when we automatically discount some scientific possibility simply because we don't like the implications that come along with it.
Likewise, I'm bothered when people leap to support a sh*tty argument just to prove how above political correctness they are.
Quote:
If I were to suggest that African Americans as a group seem to do better at sports then whites, no one would doubt my observation.
Hrm? I would. You're making the same error I complained about Watson making -- over generalization. I could name many sports where whites have excelled and blacks have not.
Quote:
And if I further suggested that this was because of some set of genetic traits that tended higher in blacks then whites I *also* don't think anyone would make a big deal out of it.
Actually, people have gotten into plenty of heat (rightly or not) for suggesting exactly that. I would also, again, point out how overly general you are. If we were to assume, for arguement, that Kenyans have a difference in their muscles which benefits them while running, that would mean that
Kenyans have that benefit. African pygmies are still screwed.
Quote:
Why assume that this can (and does) occur with regard to physical athleticism, but somehow cannot possibly have any link whatsoever to intellectual capability?
Well, first off, nice strawman on the "Since we all agree with the physical aspect..." bit. Secondly, as I keep pointing out, physical differences in populations are not indicators that that 'race' as a broad group shares the same differences. Thirdly, almost all differences people point to are probably
advantages to the host group, be it shorter limbs for heat retention, muscle construction for endurance, enlarged heart for extra muscle oxygenation or even the malaria fighting benefits of sickle-cell. On the other hand, being deficent in intelligence is never a benefit. On the contrary, no matter if you're trying to chip a spearpoint, trap a gazelle or build a semiconductor, those with greater intelligence will most often succeed over those without. The whole "Well, if you accept
these differences..." argument breaks down for me when all the other differences we point to are beneficial or, at worst, neutral (such as hair color).
Edited, Oct 19th 2007 6:50pm by Jophiel