Race and intelligence

In an interview with the Sunday Times, scientist James Watson suggested that race determines intelli

By Steven Rose Published 19 October 2007

Every time we think we have buried the pseudo-science behind racist claims about differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites, some attention-seeker attempts to re-ignite them.

This time it is Jim Watson, brilliant molecular biologist, Nobelist for the discovery of the structure of DNA and architect of the Human Genome Project. Watson, however, has an unfortunate reputation for making outrageous and offensive remarks in areas in which he is scientifically incompetent.

The scientific community has become wearily familiar with his tendency to shoot from the hip on issues such as feminism (the right place for a feminist is in someone else’s lab) and homosexuality (if a genetic test were available, pregnant women should be given the option to abort).

But his glamour means that his words, which are without scientific merit, will reignite an otherwise long-buried fight over race and IQ, bring cheer to racists and must be firmly rebutted.

In his newspaper interviews, and it appears, in his most recent book, Watson claims, without evidence, that 'Africans' have lower intelligence than 'Us' - by which he means white Euro-American males, and that this difference is genetic.

However, firstly, the question of what constitutes 'intelligence' is itself problematic - the word has much broader and diverse meanings than what can be encompassed in IQ tests.

Intelligence is always intelligence-in-context, ( many would argue that someone who can make remarks like Watson's is singularly devoid of social intelligence, for instance).

Second, the idea that there is a genetically meaningful African 'race' is nonsense. There is wide cultural and genetic diversity amongst African populations from south to north, from Ethiopians to Nigerians. There are, for example probably genetic as well as environmental reasons why Ethiopians make good marathon runners whereas Nigerians on the whole do not.

To group the entire diverse populations of Africa together is a characteristically racist trick. Furthermore, to even give any semblance of scientific respectability to Watson's claim, it would have been necessary to provide data such as IQ test results on all these varied African (and indeed Euro-American – so-called ‘caucasian’) populations and to explore the reasons for any differences should they appear.

Even where there are such average differences in IQ score, as for instance between Black and White populations in the US, there are no scientifically valid methods to enable one to untangle the many interacting factors of the validity of IQ tests themselves, as measures of anything other than school performance, educational and social deprivation, the history of slave-owners versus slaves and continuing racism, which may account for them.

It is now some 40 years since in the US Arthur Jensen resuscitated the buried claims of scientific racism, and since then geneticists, psychologists, neuroscientists and educationalists have rebutted them many times over.

It is sad to see Watson returning to this vomit. His scientific reputation will stand, but his reputation as a thoughtful contributor to debates about the relationship of genetics to social problems is irretrievably tarnished.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

21 comments

Thu, 2012-07-19 13:16 — mzaryta (not verified)

anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3solat
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet

Thu, 2007-10-25 10:03 — Petite Anglaise

"This time it is Jim Watson, brilliant molecular biologist, Nobelist for the discovery of the structure of DNA and architect of the Human Genome Project."

One can only stand back and gape in shock and awe at the sheer stupidity of the man, the stupid white man.

Thu, 2007-10-25 12:03 — VC

rumplestiltskin,

Apart from Asia, which is recent and Western driven. Where is there evidence of none white industrialisation? The same question can be said for carbon use and environmental damage. If the black/ethnic world weren`t being raped of their resources, ie we whites stayed within our own shores, None whites would be living in even more sustainable communities than they do now.

Whites are better killers, I think the last century and the start of this one speaks for itself.

Whites are more llikely to be paedophiles: I won`t go into this too much, but in all the cases I`ve seen in the media, I can`t remember a single black face....of course, I`m sure this isn`t a simple black and white case...but the media would surely latch onto a black paedophile....I`m still waiting for the story!

Rumple; would it make you feel better, more superior if I claimed that my research/studies were funded by the African Union? These are comments from an ordinary member of the public....these are my opinions and observations and I have provided some basic evidence. Maybe you could ask your mates back at the lodge to help you out with your government backed evidence....I`m sure you can find the pro-rata conviction data for paedophiila in white, blacks and other ethnic groups....I mean, given the level of police attention given to black communities, you won`t have much of a problem...will you?lol

I waiting by the hole and I`ve a feeling you will be sliding in first. Sorry about my badly phrased comments....I received a poor, but typical British education.lol

Sun, 2008-08-31 18:12 — David1112

Now let me set the record straight....I have read a lot of racially motivated, comments on the topic race and IQ.A lot of white people are very happy to hear about the lower intelligence of black people .Those that already saw blacks as less human now base their arguments on the IQ tests.
Now lets assume that the results of this IQ tests are accurate and imply that blacks on AVERAGE are less intelligent than whites, as the tests show.
Now the problem is how people interpret these results...the tests say the average white has an IQ of about 90 and the average black about 70.
the results also show that some blacks score 120 and some above150.
So yes, the results show that there are more whites with high IQs than blacks, but thy also say there are black representatives at every level, from dumb to extremely intelligent….just like whites.Remember the girl on Americas next top model?
If you disagree with my analysis, then stop reading because you are not intelligent enough to understand statistics.
If you agree with me, then lets have a discussion.
How can you tell that the black guy sitting next to you in the bus does not have an IQ of 150 ? Is it how dark he looks, or how big his nose is? Or his lips maybe?
As I said the IQ results only show that there is a higher probability to meet a white or Asian person with a high IQ than a black .In other words if you were to measure IQs of 1000 individuals each, from the different races, you would have say... about 50 whites and 50 Asians with IQs of about150 (about 5%), and may be about 20 blacks with such extreme intelligence .And if you think 20 is too much, well then lets say 10.
Now some whites tend to brand all blacks as having low IQs and call them names, totally ignoring the black people that score high in the IQ tests .An attempt to justify why they think blacks are totally unrelated to whites and should not be considered as human as whites…rather ,some kind of sub-human group.
And this is where racism and prejudice set in.
Many whites interpret the IQ results as showing that all blacks are dumb. Well how do you know who is intelligent and who is not? And even if there is just one intelligent black person in the whole wide world...how do you know it is not the black woman or man sitting next to you.? You will only know if you get to test him or her on an individual basis. Just because Einstein was white does not make you an Einstein just because are white...you may just be as dumb as Britney Spears...but how do I know that if I do not judge you as an individual rather than as a member of the white race?
So think about how you judge the IQs of the black people you meet...because , while many will be less intelligent than you, some will be more intelligent than you....whether you like it or not.
I come from Africa and I have been living in Germany for eight years...I study medicine at the university of cologne and I am currently on a last, practical year ...my measured IQ is a hundred and forty-five and I give part-time biology classes to pre-university German students.....
Just some food for thought...
Prejudice can lead to individuals lowering their ambitions and hence achievements.
I do appreciate and commend the white race for helping us take this long leap into the modern world of technology, and this comes from my heart,….but remember... not all whites did that, but a rather tiny , tiny, tiny fraction of Einsteins and Newtons, and Archimedes, Watsons…etc, some of whom were persecuted because they were too intelligent for the rest of the population to follow their line of thinking.
It is very natural to be proud of the achievements of your race, but the next time you say 'we whites are more intelligent than you blacks', make sure that you as an individual can back up the statement, because you just might be disgraced by the black guy sitting next to you…….

Fri, 2007-10-19 16:47 — Deseretian

I understand that we all want everyone to succeed; however, as one who has actually lived in communities that do not have a white majority, I can say that there is something more than culture involved in smarts. "Black" means many things in the US. The minimum requirement here, in my view, is that there be some observable evidence that at least one of your ancestors was of partial African origin. If you restrict your opinion of the intelligence divide to sub-Saharan Africans who do not display an admixture of other races, I think you'll realize that there is SOMETHING going on within that population that is not solely the result of backwards culture and bad nutrition. It is dangerous to assume that there are not wide gaps in ability between populations. Populations in Africa are diverse; however they are also uniformly descended from groups that did not find a way to become important (in an industrial/political sense) despite their being very close (geographically) to the most vibrant cultural regions in the world (North Africa, Middle East, Southern Europe). Keeping an open mind works both ways.

Sat, 2007-10-20 00:03 — VC

This is a pointless debate. Mr Watson may well be right, but this is based on such a skewed pre-history. When the world can view an elite posey of school`s and universities which are largely occupied by black`s over a few hundred years. Only then can Mr Watson be taken seriously.

Maybe in contrast, we should view the white South African population`s interlectual performance to that of the entire none white world...its a no brainer.

I and my family have known a black girl who lives near us in London...even my 15 year old daughter can see her struggle. Not only is her home education limited, but she has suffered from lack of nutrition. Mr Watson wants a quick result, signed and sealed.

One wonders if the black community suffers as much peadophilia as the white community? Maybe having an interlectual edge carries some major social flaws.

Going on current thinking, historical black communities are much more sustainable than our white model. One thing is for sure, whites are much better killers, this might be our only edge, but nothing to boast about.

Sat, 2007-10-20 06:31 — taghioff.info

Why don't we talk about the power issues that make this issue inflammatory.

Any differences detected are very small compared to the inequalities between the groups thus identified, so their chances of being causative of the massive inequality we see, even if they do exist are very small.

The real debates are those related to social inequality, that used to be called class, but that now encompass issues of racial identification, in world of global migration.

Genetics is a side issue, since genetic expression is so strongly conditioned by environmental influences, which are in turn strongly conditioned by these political factors.

The bad politics consists of shifting the focus of debate to genetics in the first place. The science is clearly not the focus because as scientists keep pointing out it is inconclusive and discusses relatively small effects. So this is a political debate, and needs to be seen in that context, partly to allow the scientists room to pursue their scholarship.

Wed, 2007-10-31 23:48 — rumplestiltskin

OK heres why I questioned your original comments...

Sorry to anybody who has got caught up in reading these comments, but I cant let this go. I have never got in a slanging match online before and feel bad for doing so now : (

"Maybe in contrast, we should view the white South African population`s interlectual performance to that of the entire none white world...its a no brainer."

From that I would infer that you think that most white south africans are intellectually challenged and that most "non-whites" arent. That is patently ridiculous with the laws of averages being what they are, but I will grant you there are many ways of measuring intellect. Thats really what this whole issue is about.

I have no idea what intellectual means to you, but I would suggest that not reading a report with relevent information because you cant be bothered might put you in a similar bracket as the "white south africans."

"One wonders if the black community suffers as much peadophilia as the white community? Maybe having an interlectual edge carries some major social flaws"

In this para you then blatantly contradict yourself by then stating that whites do have an intellectual edge (except the ones from south africa obviously) at the cost of other flaws, therefore also implying that blacks are indeed intellectually inferior. You also manage to casually wonder whether paedophilia is more prevalent in white communities than black. Dont you want to check your facts before making comments like this? If you do get around to reading the report you will find that the differences are statistically insignificant though the breakdown in the report is not incredibly specific about seperating paedophilia from other similar crimes

As for your further musings on "historical sustainable black communities" I dont think I can face what you think you might be on about here, its all getting so random.

If reading the Sun will help you read up on stuff before jumping to whacky conclusions then go knock yourself out. I cant wait to hear what you come up with next...

Thu, 2007-10-25 21:59 — rumplestiltskin

Carl,

I'm sorry you feel the need to jump to the conclusion that I am from an elitist lodge of masons or some such organisation so let me set the record straight for you...

I have never been to university and was educated in a fairly bad comprehensive in north london. I dont work for the government or an NGO related to these issues. Like you I am an "ordinary member of the public".

I wouldnt feel more superior if I thought your views were funded by an African Union study. To be honest I came across this article by chance and I do not particularly follow such issues.

What I took issue at was your comments on whiteness and blackness... I believe you are mistakenly under the impression that there is a tendency for white or black people to be of different types that behave in certain ways, eg:
"Whites are better killers, I think the last century and the start of this one speaks for itself."
"Whites are more llikely to be paedophiles: I won`t go into this too much, but in all the cases I`ve seen in the media, I can`t remember a single black face"

Your evidence seems to be opinion not evidence. I'm afraid that you not remembering whether or not there has been a black paedophile recently (or ever) doesnt really count. And the fact that you cannot put Rwanda or any other genocides into a similar context does not support your case.

Have you considered that maybe the media hasnt latched on to any "black" paedophiles because "they" dont care about the colour of a paedophile? Or that there is a possibility that paedophila in the "black" community is less well reported? (A cursory Google search will reveal some articles on this). There are of course many complex reasons why the second case might be true, whatever you think of the first.

At one point in your post you say the media would "surely latch onto a black paedophile" (if there was one?), and in another you think that it wont be difficult for me to find the evidence myself "given the level of police attention given to black communities".

So which is it to be?

Resorting to insults is not a very sensible way to conduct a rational argument. I hope you have noticed that I have not insulted you in this post, only pointed out that you are relying on opinion not fact.

lol...