When there are so many good scientific studies on this topic, how can the London Science Museum say that the whole question of race and intelligence is "beyond the point of acceptable debate." Or maybe they don't want to debate it because there are so many good studies to cite:

"A total of 156 studies were represented in the plot [table], and the mean B/W [Black/White] difference is 1.08 standard deviations, or about sixteen IQ points." The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray.

Why are we afraid of this science? Is it possible that we are actually doing a disservice to ourselves and our own society by piously declaring that this question is "beyond the point of acceptable debate"?

Who do we fear? Ourselves? That if we came right out and said what the science proves, and what most people privately believe... society would break down? Is that likely, at this point?

What we have to fear is a return to our recent past, when many people smugly assumed that—based on the supposed biological inferiority of some races—their rightful place was to be slaves or servants, drink at separate drinking fountains and sit in the back of the bus. How can you be so disingenuous as to pretend that lots of people—especially those who are already disposed to be racist—would not use such a notion to justify not only their own personal racist feelings, but a whole range of discriminatory policies? Wasn’t racial inferiority the supposed excuse for slavery in the first place? Wouldn’t it be a perfect excuse to say that we should suspend all aid to African countries on the grounds that it’s only a waste of money to help these inferior people anyway? Would you propose putting people of African descent in separate classes at school, since they’re supposedly not as smart?

Even proceeding down such a line of questioning puts us on a slippery slope to hatred and oppression. There’s no possible other outcome, is there? If calling people of African descent less intelligent is not calling them inferior, then what is it? And tell me one possible good thing that could come from trying to scientifically “prove” that some races are inferior?

fingerpuppet:

What we have to fear is a return to our recent past, when many people smugly assumed that—based on the supposed biological inferiority of some races—their rightful place was to be slaves or servants, drink at separate drinking fountains and sit in the back of the bus. How can you be so disingenuous as to pretend that lots of people—especially those who are already disposed to be racist—would not use such a notion to justify not only their own personal racist feelings, but a whole range of discriminatory policies? Wasn’t racial inferiority the supposed excuse for slavery in the first place? Wouldn’t it be a perfect excuse to say that we should suspend all aid to African countries on the grounds that it’s only a waste of money to help these inferior people anyway? Would you propose putting people of African descent in separate classes at school, since they’re supposedly not as smart?

Even proceeding down such a line of questioning puts us on a slippery slope to hatred and oppression. There’s no possible other outcome, is there? If calling people of African descent less intelligent is not calling them inferior, then what is it? And tell me one possible good thing that could come from trying to scientifically “prove” that some races are inferior?

I agree. That's why I was so upset ten years ago when President Clinton called for an honest nationwide discussion about race. It is still a very bad time for that.

Perhaps one day we will have an explanation as to just what makes the IQ tests culturally discriminatory against blacks -- so that correcting the discrimination will allow blacks to test well. When that happens, then we can have an honest discussion about race.

Right now all we can do is to _presume_ that the tests are culturally discriminatory, on the basis that blacks tend to do significantly worse on them. (If we really believed in this excuse, we wouldn't be willing to use IQ tests to protect low-scoring black murderers from the death penalty.) An honest discussion might not justify racial discrimination on an individual level, but it sure would lead many to question the practice of reserving 10% of top-level academic positions for blacks. This push for diversity is something black voters want, and high IQ or not, their votes count for as much as anyone's. And without support for these programs we liberals have nothing on the racial issue to distinguish us from conservatives.

On the other hand, perhaps President Clinton had been lying about wanting his nationwide discussion about race to be honest. Let us hope so.

an honest discussion of race will happen when a majority of white folks are willing to admit that racism exists and that it exerts influence on the lives of people of color without that effect being openly apparent to those who are not considered as such. It's basically taught in school as something like the nazis in WWII, something that we overcame in the sixties that was mainly prosecuted by laudable white men with a heady appreciation of what equality actually means.

but, even on this forum, you will get a heavy mix of those defending science for sake of science, and objectivity as being as blind as lady justice. I'm certain that any number of people will be willing to argue the objectivity of the study, and when racism inherent is brought up, it will dismissed using that same insulating claim of objectivity. until racism can be discussed widely with the same kind of matter-of-factness widely used when we talk about science, science will remain a puppet of something shadowy and unacknowledged. Until we realize that nothing humans practice is separate from our influence and intentions, then science will stand for a respect we give to the sage who alone has access with an ear to god.

There is an interesting essay on the topic of taboo subjects by Paul Graham (http://www.paulgraham.com/say­.html).

One idea he expresses in this essay is that ideas which are considered taboo (i.e. statements which might be true, but you just shouldn't say them for social reasons), like all scientific investigations of race and intelligence, represent statements about groups which have only recently gained political power in a society, or whose power is in question. Thus, they will fight vigorously against statements that might weaken their power.

Scientists have always gotten into trouble for saying things of this nature (remember Galileo). As a nerdy guy myself, I tend to value science for its own sake, and regard attempts to limit it for political reasons as unacceptable. Some of the conclusions that science will come up with will sting, but I'd rather know than not know.

Incidentally, people who argue for group differences in intelligence do recognize that individuals should be judged on their own merits. It is just that others in society fear that statements about AVERAGE differences will be misinterpreted by ignorant racists as statements about individual differences.

"What we have to fear is a return to our recent past, when many people smugly assumed that—based on the supposed biological inferiority of some races—their rightful place was to be slaves or servants"

So, we shouldn't discuss people who carry genetic disorders that lead to mental retardation? Or even acknowledge those with mental handicaps in society, because talking about them would mean that society will deem them as subservious and place them in positions as slaves?

It seems that society is not that way. Slavery was deemed first and excuses were made up to rationalize it latter. Talking about genetics now is not going to lead to slavery. The evil comes first and then rationalized backwards, not the other way around.

I agree that we should give great and careful consideration to issues of racism and descrimination. But proceeding in a scientific manner is not a choice, it seems to me. Rather, science is, and must remain, an imperative. We should not under any circumstances shy away from scientific facts.

What in fact is happening in the Watson furor is that the vast majority of skeptical and thoughtful individuals are simply too afraid of the social repercussions to even discuss the possibilities of such findings. Science should not be allowed to exist in an atmosphere of fear, but such, right now, is the case.

If well designed studies show differences in intelligence in various ethnic groups, that says nothing about the individual. But it can help in formulating effective social policy. To hide from such evidence is what is truly repugnant, not speaking about it.

copyofcopy:

an honest discussion of race will happen when a majority of white folks are willing to admit that racism exists and that it exerts influence on the lives of people of color without that effect being openly apparent to those who are not considered as such. ...

That's silly. When all that happens there'll no longer be any need for a discussion on race. And even if your precondition did happen, there still would be a need to come up with excuses for low IQ scores -- so honesty would still have to wait.

"that's silly. when all that happens there will no longer be any need for a discussion of race"

exactly. when we are willing to admit that race is cultural, not genetic, then the category will cease to have any bearing on a discussion of scientific findings. as it stands now, in a global economy, the most relevant correlation between I.Q. and intelligence is how much capital your average citizen controls.

This is interesting to consider when racie as it is historically understood has its roots in the period of colonialism in which much of Africa was under the control of imperialist nations.

Are we so obsessed with the idea of something inherent, something "in and of itself" that we will pare away any disruptive and constitutive historical influence in order to come up with simplistic interpretations on cultural themes that have wide and ultimately detrimental repercussions?

Science is a tool of man. It is a tool of human desire and interest. This is not to abuse what we consider the scientific objectivity that has helped to advance the progress of human kind, but it's not like science hasn't been used before to reach conclusions it doesn't necessarily dictate. The information in these studies is immediately influenced by the old and horrible tendency to affiliate a person's skin color with their humanity, and it becomes dangerous when we use that information to reach conclusions that remove it from that arena of sterility. It is even more dangerous when we pretend that it is immune simply because it is science.

racism is most obvious in its loudest adherents, but racism survives and flourishes largely with the permission given from the tendency to deny its existence.

Pair0dox:

It is just that others in society fear that statements about AVERAGE differences will be misinterpreted by ignorant racists as statements about individual differences.

Just? Hardly a trivial fear, even if the studies were truly unbiased; rather, it's the way a lot of white people live now.

There are scores of books on the misuse of science in the past to justify the subordination of individuals of different ethnicities, cultures and "races." And let's not forget the sex that's Other vis-à-vis men. Or try reading an Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Negroes" from the early 20th century. It's shocking.

Was most happy to read this:

<link>

"Why are we afraid of this science? Is it possible that we are actually doing a disservice to ourselves and our own society by piously declaring that this question is "beyond the point of acceptable debate"? "

Because somethings studies like "The Bell Curve" aren't good science. Why debate bad science?

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

People need to stop being so "PC" all the time and really stop and think about this for a second. Why does it scare people so bad to think that there might be a difference between races? Here is some data I pulled from the US Census Bureau and the Detriot News

Black persons, US population: 12.8%

Black persons, playing in NBA: 77%

Black persons, playing in NFL: 69%

If Mr. Watson had said data suggests that Black people are superior athletes, there would have been no fuss at all. There are genetic differences between the different races, for example, black people are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, white people from northern Europe are more likely to have Cystic fibrosis, Jewish people Tay Sachs....I could go on, but the point is just as every individual is genetically different from every other individual, the different races do have genetic differences. To deny this is simply silly.

Bad science isn't the same is being PC.

"If Mr. Watson had said data suggests that Black people are superior athletes, there would have been no fuss at all . . . . the point is just as every individual is genetically different from every other individual, the different races do have genetic differences. To deny this is simply silly."

Excellent point, Student2007. I hope most of your fellow students are as level-headed as you are.

Unfortunately, political ideology tends to trump science (recall Lysenkoism during Stalin). The fundamental concept underlying socialism is that we all come into the world as blank slates, waiting to be molded by social forces. The thought that genetics determines what physical or mental gifts or deficits we might have is abhorrent to those of that political persuasion because it might render their grand social engineering schemes useless.

Epicurus:

The fundamental concept underlying socialism is that we all come into the world as blank slates, waiting to be molded by social forces. The thought that genetics determines what physical or mental gifts or deficits we might have is abhorrent to those of that political persuasion because it might render their grand social engineering schemes useless.

So if I said that, "The fundamental concept underlying Republicanism is that full citizenship rights only belong to the elite", would that be as accurate as your statement?

The "soft 's'" socialism of today is more along the lines of, "some people need a social leg-up in order to level the playing field, because they are being actively handicapped by prejudice and economic disadvantage." It's not a "tabula rasa" argument, it's an "everyone should have a fair competitive shot" argument.

But you're a bright guy - you know this. You just like to overstate your case as a means of mocking your ideological adversaries.

What's your background, Epicurus? What's your horse in this race? Are you next going to move from supposed neutrality on these issues to, "It's time to abolish Equal Opportunity, and cut-off aid to Africa"?