I am far from unbiased about Watson (I know him and respect him hugely). I deplore the ugliness of his comments – they were stupid, ill-advised and a terrible embarrassment.

But it remains a trivial truth that the world prefers its elderly Men of Science to be adorable old farts. Watson is not. We’ve also – quite rightly -become tired of provocative public statements that seem intended to shock “this PC-mad world!!”. Just because you madden the liberals doesn’t mean you have a courageous point of view.

However, it’s a relief to read someone who doesn’t add “and the dreadful Watson wants to abort gays to boot…”. He doesn’t and he didn’t say it – even though the accusation has stuck.

Anyway, for what it’s worth (from a self-admitted biased source, though also a liberal feminist!), that was a very fair and thoughtful comment.

watson did say this basically. but he said other more nuanced things as well later on in follow ups. it isn’t a black & white issue, so to speak

in any case, the bigger picture is that we’ll probably know within 10-20 years via genome-wide associations the extent to which these sorts of things are between population genetic & not. and most people who are computer savvy will be able to do the appropriate queries on public databases and get the raw data to analyze themselves. power to the people!

You didn’t on the other hand state that black people on average are dumber than white people and that’s why Africa is the way it is. If you think there’s solid empirical support for “black people are poorer because they are dumber” than by all means lets hear it.

Watson made a claim that has no solid empirical support.

no one knows if the between group differences in IQ are due to differences in genes, but those differences are real. on assumes that the measured IQs on the order of 70 in west africa are more a reflection of extremely unfavorable environmental conditions than anything else (they’re 1 standard deviation below the IQ of black americans), but they probably also gage the amount of standing human capital you have to work with. too many discussions of watson’s comments have if there aren’t measured differences in IQs across populations. the differences might not measure anything more that education, health, cultural norms of how to invest your marginal time, but they do reflect underlying issues.

I don’t think that flies. Not all empirical claims are created equal, nor is a scientist of impeccable credentials incapable of saying racists things.

Watson made a claim that has no solid empirical support. These kinds of arguments were historically racism dressed up in scientific clothing, phrenology anyone? So it behooves someone who makes arguments and advances ideas that have historically been used to oppress minorities to make sure the arguments are good ones backed up by empirical evidence.

This is especially the case of someone with scientific stature and influence.