
James Watson and the Insidiousness of Scientific Racism - sonabinu
https://www.wired.com/story/james-watson-and-scientific-racism/
======
jplayer01
Feels like the author writes way too much without saying anything, then ends
the article without a real conclusion.

I guess maybe "Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is
so broken about the ideas of Watson and his army." was what he was working
towards, but that seems like an extraordinarily weak point to make.

~~~
dmitriid
Because the topic of genes and race is too sensitive for many reasons, both
right and wrong.

However, we should really be talking about this.

\- We _know_ that genes affect our physical appearance (hence races are
distinguishable between each other).

\- We _know_ that different races have genetic predisposition to certain
diseases (sickle cell disease and people of African ancestry, for example).

\- We _know_ that genetic studies reveal fascinating history of how people
migrated across the globe and how nations are mostly a fictional invention.

\- We _know_ how genes affect anything from eye color to horrible conditions
like Roberts syndrome

But we are too afraid to talk about anything beyond these few topics, and how
genetic differences between races affect (negatively, neutrally, or
positively) people of these races.

~~~
porpoisely
Obviously topics on race need to be covered carefully and sensitively given
the destructive history of race, science and politics. However, it still
should be covered, investigated and the facts accepted.

Sadly, in today's environment, science that conflicts with certain agenda have
become blasphemy. It's reminiscent of the anti-science and anti-intellectual
days of geocentrism and the catholic church. It's amazing how one of the great
scientists of our time has been "excommunicated" and attacked mercilessly for
his blashphemy. The strange thing is that the media is using racism themselves
to attack the guy.

~~~
panarky
_> science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy_

How does that relate to this article?

In your assessment, are Watson's claims about race well supported by good
science?

------
ravenstine
> Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is so broken
> about the ideas of Watson and his army.

His _army_?

------
BossHogg
Reading the article I felt confident about general direction of comments on
the HN page. HN proved as reliable as ever. Not only is it flagged as most
articles about Blacks seem to be (meanwhile something about age
discrimination, Asian victimization at the nefarious hands of affirmative
action, or poor old James Damore are karma goldmines) but it's the same old
ill-considered nonsense that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of critical
reasoning.

Hey, while we're researching why _those_ people are stupid, let's also
research why inhabitants and descendants of Northern climes seem so
predisposed to be and do evil. The race/IQ obsessives being a relatively minor
example among countless others.

------
rleigh
While I am certainly not going to endorse any racism, I am a little
uncomfortable with what's going on here.

As a bit of background, let's look at Lysenko
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko)).
To summarise briefly, soviet collectivist political doctrine was fundamentally
opposed to Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution as concepts, as I
understand primarily because individuals are not identical parts of a
collective, but are genetically unique and competing and succeeding or failing
upon that basis. So they adopted practices which were politically acceptable,
but without a shred of scientific evidence. 30 million people starved to death
as a result. And soviet science, while generally advanced, was many decades
behind when it came to biological and genetic research as a consequence.

Science is fundamentally about asking questions by formulating and disproving
hypotheses. Sometimes, the questions and hypotheses in question can be
uncomfortable. However, just because a question is not politically correct
does not mean that question isn't a valid question to ask or to obtain an
answer for.

I'm not going to address whether Watson himself is simply asking controversial
questions, or actually racist. I don't know, or care especially. But I'm going
to pose the following:

If we take the entire human population, and consider if specific genes have a
contribution to intelligence (however we might choose to quantify it), the
answer is almost certainly "yes". Genes affect every part of our development,
and it would be extremely unlikely for there not to be any genetic
contribution for this single factor when we know it has profound effects upon
everything else. The real questions are which genes, to what extent they have
an effect, and the mechanisms by which they exert that effect. That shouldn't
be particularly controversial.

If you take that a step further, and decide to look at not at the whole
population, but the spread between and within different groups, that also
shouldn't be too controversial. We already know there are significant
differences between the variants of individual genes between groups. It would
not be surprising or controversial if some of those genes had some effect on
intelligence.

It only becomes truly controversial when you make those groups specific. For
example, grouping by sex, or race, or age, or occupation, or whatever
classifier you might choose. These aren't controversial scientifically, they
are controversial socially and politically. And going back to the original
point about Lysenko, when politics decides what is or is not acceptable to
question, we stop dealing with the facts of reality, and start dealing in
wishful thinking. The wishful thinking here is that we are all the same and
that there are no differences between races. But it's obvious that we aren't
all the same. Basic genetics and observation tells us that. But there probably
are differences, even if those differences are small. Or not so small. The
problem is that people are afraid they might not like the answer, so they try
to suppress the question.

But, from a scientific point of view, we can't deal with the problem except
from a position of knowledge. We can't tackle it without understanding and
quantifying it. Suppose that there is a big difference. Maybe that would give
us a basis of doing something about it, to ensure we all have equal prospects,
such as changing education to help people who don't learn as fast. The
alternative is to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we are all the
same, despite any inequalities that might result by that inaction.

------
michaelhoffman
"scientific" racism

~~~
zozbot123
This. There's _nothing_ scientific about Watson's views, and even social
scientists who stress the relevance of cognitive skills in development and
express concern about this relevance (such as, IIRC, economist Garett Jones)
do _not_ share or endorse a view nearly as extreme as Watson's. Even
journalist and pundit Steve Sailer, who is very often ridiculed as a believer
in scientific racism, has actually stated many times and with great clarity
that even "raw" cognitive ability (to say nothing of things like educational
attainment or productivity) is extremely likely to be highly affected by
environmental factors such as severe disease, malnutrition and the lack of a
range of important micronutrients-- such factors being very common in Africa
and in low-income countries more generally, but also obviously amenable to
change. This whole Watson kerfuffle is just a cranky old guy sharing his
deeply misguided opinions-- it's not science and it's not even "scientific" in
any real sense.

~~~
x3tm
Why is this downvoted?! What's here to disagree with?!

------
throw19750
We are only a few years away until GWAS studies finish identifying the genes
linked to intelligence, and that scientists confirm what sociologists have
known for the past 100 years. It's high time for society to maturely start
discussing this topic.

------
blancheneige
so, why is he wrong again?

------
x3tm
Strange article. Why give Watson, who most people forgot about anyway,
publicity in this way? Seems to me that this kind of articles fuels racism by
introducing bigots to a great bigot they can look up to, more than it actually
fights racism. The fact that it mixes emotions, ideology, and science in the
same pot is also problematic.

Then comes the "Black scientists are" part. This is a ridiculous and dangerous
construction. Again it fuels racism more than it fights it. What's special
about black scientists? Nothing. If we don't see race. A better phrasing is to
express culture/feeling/history "Black people are"

~~~
beat
"I don't see race" is a luxury for those who aren't seen by their race.

Two days ago, a well-known black actor was attacked in Chicago. His attackers
put a noose around his neck and poured bleach on him, while shouting racist
and homophobic slurs. Do you think he gets to "not see race"?

What's special about black scientists? It's in the article. Until recently,
they didn't exist, by and large. They weren't granted the opportunity, talent
be damned. So there's a relevance to their experience, whether it makes you
feel good or not.

~~~
x3tm
My comment was that I dont see race _when it comes to science_. Science is not
influenced by race. Race is not relevant for scientific discussions.

I was criticizing the fact that the mixing between race and science is bad at
best. Wherever it comes from.

Im certainly not denying the existence of racism, and I also don't need
anecdotes to know that.

~~~
beat
Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any
attempt to discuss racism - as if sticking our heads in the sand will protect
us from predators. I'm sure you've seen this, too. So when I see it, there's
some reflex involved.

Science itself is, of course, not influenced by the race of the scientist.
However, racism has been rationalized by "science" for centuries, which is
what Watson was doing. That's what the article is about. I kind of wish the
author had reached back to debunked nonsense like phrenology to show the
history of how "scientific racism" works, but it is what it is.

I thought the author's point that using exceptionalism to reinforce
"scientific racism" was really interesting and important. I think there's a
lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the
lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses
to justify a morally repugnant belief system.

~~~
x3tm
>Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any
attempt to discuss racism

Yes, I got the good intention behind your message. No worries.

> I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism
> itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will
> make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.

Of course. But black scientists are not better suited to do that. Not more
than Asians or Arabs for instance. That's the core of my comment. Science is
just a method.

