Watson attack video

I came across this youtube video: EPEISODIO WATSON

The continued antiracist, anarchists, and leftist response to Watson is unbelievable, given what Watson originally said:

In his Oct 14th interview:
… [Watson] is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”

True — Africans DO have lower IQs and the lower IQs are predictive of quite a few national differences.

In Avoid Boring People:
“… there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

True — Genetic differences COULD be behind the IQ differences.

The response is why this issue needs to be forced. If there is a genetic difference and it’s proved, the leftist’s moral-theology will be greatly damaged. If there isn’t and it’s proved, we can all safely avoid the topic.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Watson attack video

  1. observer says:

    On the straight dope site someone asked why

    “Does farming only impact men’s intelligence? Why doesn’t horticulture affect intelligence? Or are you rather overly narrowly defining “agriculture” to suit your needs? The peoples in the Americas practiced intensive agriculture. Why are their IQs lower? And here’s a good one: Iraq is home to the Fertile Crescent, as well as some of the oldest civilizations in the world. Why is the average Iraqi IQ a mere 87? Maybe it would be easier if you guys would say how, exactly, farming impacted IQ. ”

    Any thoughts on scores in the middle east?


    • Chuck says:

      If you want and have time (if you are commenting on straight dope, you must), we can work out a robust model and see if it fits the data — let me know.

    • Chuck says:

      You have to reframe the question:

      “But why would groups have evolved different levels of intelligence? Because they evolved different levels of intelligence. Groups have different levels and this came about somehow. There were some cultural or environmental pressures which lead to the differences. The Hereditarian hypothesis just contends that those pressures which caused the differences left imprints in the populations’ genetic structures. How? Perhaps via gene-culture evolution, perhaps via natural selection. The point is that groups do have different levels of intelligence and these differences came about somehow. The issue is whether or not the pressures that led to these differences left genetic imprints. What’s your explanation for the cause of the differences and why do you think this could not have had an impact on population genetics?”

  2. Chuck says:

    Not another one….


    Before you argue these things you need a game plan
    1) First establish that genotypic IQ is more fluid that people think (refer to the following paper: Nyborg, 2011. The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian Selection)

    2) Next establish that there is a good deal of variance within a population. (a between population difference of 1Sd is equivalent to a .20/.80 between group/within group variance.)

    3) Now, establish that latitude, climate, and parasite infection correlate with IQ as does skin color.

    4) offer the following proximate causes: temperature/climate and parasite infection — both can have genotypic effects

    For climate, refer here: http://wulv.uni-greifswald.de/2008_SP_DIV/userdata/Climate%20and%20Democracy_2004_Vanhanen.pdf
    (see also: Roth, LaDage, and Pravosudov, 2010. Learning capabilities enhanced in harsh environments: a common garden approach)

    “We found that birds from the harsh northern population, where selection for cognitive abilities is expected to be high, significantly out performed conspecifics from the mild southern population…our results support the idea that environmental severity may be an important factor in shaping certain aspects of cognition.”

    5) Inevitably, you will get the Eskimo question (IQ 92) — so you point out that a sufficient population density is necessary to transmit novel alleles

    6) Then you can point out about the agricultural revolution or some other culturally driven developmental process which accelerated selection, spreading the alleles through the population

    7) But why not west Africa? — Neanderthal inbreeding theory (“10 thousand year explosion”) — some of the alleles were not available to them.

    a) left Africa, which had decreased IQ related to parasite infections
    b) picked up novel alleles from Neanderthals
    c) population density increased — alleles spread through the populations
    d) more selection for more northern people
    e) less selection for Inuit because of population density
    f) higher IQ’s led to building more robust civilization == increasing phenotypic IQ
    (Hereditarians argue that ~1/2 to 3/4th of difference is genetic, say = African (Adult) genotypic IQ of 82, African American (Adults) genotypic IQ of 85 (since they already are raised in a white environment), middle eastern IQ of 93, etc (since they are not raised in a modern European environment), etc,

    • Chuck says:

      Balley and Greary, 2009. Hominid Brain Evolution. (Cranial capacity: 1.9 million to 10 years ago]

      Mean Temp -.41
      Temp variation .30
      Population density .79
      Parasite -.41
      Beals, et al., 1984. Brain Size, Cranial Morphology, Climate, and Time Machines (Cranial capacity: 1800s through 1900s)

      Climate .65
      National IQ

      Latitude ..6
      Winter high .56* . to 76
      Winter low ..37* to 66
      Geographic distance .08* to .36
      Mean temperature .617
      Parasite load -.76
      * African scores excluded
      Gene-cultural evolution
      Environment –Eurasian agricultural advantage => Technological + economic advancement =>

      Eurasians agricultural advantage => dense population => competition
      Introgression with Neanderthal
      Adventitious alleles

  3. Chuck says:

    When you point that out, have them type the alleles into the box under “Landmark or Region”

  4. nikcrit says:

    Re. leftist reactions to HBD:

    Though somewhat beside the point, I find it endlessly interesting that i’ve yet to see a vid of a anti-HBD act or demonstration that involves actual african-americans —– just their diligent spokespersons, such as the ones in the vid you provided in this post.

  5. nikcrit says:

    RE: “The difference COULD be mediated by genetics”

    Just in need of a rhetorical clarification here: are you saying the issue of hereditary causation would be played out in the media in the form of a discussion w/in the realm of human genetics? Or are you saying the ‘difference’ is the difference in IQ and/or causation-or-non-causation can be rectified, i.e., mediated, by ‘genetics.’
    This may be a simple phrase, but i couldn’t quite figure out what it meant; and the statements preceding and following the above quote didn’t provide clarifying context for me.

    • Chuck says:

      1. I just meant that it COULD be as opposed to “could not be.” And since it’s possible and not at all implausible, the leftist etc reaction is unwarranted. Imagine if we all knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the gap was in no way genetic. How would Watson’s statement come across to you then? Under those circumstances, Watson’s statement could be taken as a crude insult — or, perhaps, as an expression of senility. Under those circumstances, the Leftist reaction would seem more reasonable, no? But that imaginary world is not the world we are living in. We are living in a world where it is not known — where the question is open — and where there is a substantial amount of evidence for a genetic basis. Under these circumstances, the leftist etc reaction takes on a different light. I want you to picture those circumstances — ones in which we all knew that it was plausible that the gap was in some way genetic — and try to make sense of the leftist etc. reaction.

      As for “mediate” — I meant mediated in the statistical sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation_(statistics). I guess I wasn’t too clear. Since the gap didn’t start last year or last millennium, some historic environmental factors were behind it. Perhaps the unknown environmental factors acted directly (a la Jared Diamond) or perhaps they shaped the African genome and by way of that are causing the gap (a la Richard Lynn).

      • nikcrit says:

        thanks for the clarification; in fact,, i was unaware of the specific statistical form of ‘mediation’; that wikpedia explanation of it was interesting to me, because from that i see that statistical ‘mediation’ alleviaties one of the admittedly vague criticisms i have of quantitative social science and its seeming limiitations, i.e., re. intangibles of ‘controlling,’ etc.

        as for “I want you to picture those circumstances — ones in which we all knew that it was plausible that the gap was in some way genetic — and try to make sense of the leftist etc. reaction.”
        i don’t know; i think you know, or know well-enough, but are just incredulous toward and too far away from that view to be empathetic. their actions aren’t particularly ign orant or blind to scientific plausibility; rather, they’re presuming the views are manufactured to serve a political agenda that they find distasteful; or, at the very least, they feel they’re confronting a quasi-scientific theory that’s subordinate to a self-serving agenda, etc.; or, maybe some aren’t even, on a personal level, denying the scientific plausibility of hereditarian causation, but just fear the pandora’s box of possibilities that may come about if such a view was widely disseminated.
        amongst the ones i just suggested, I’m only partial or empathetic to that last scenario, but i can empathize with the frustrations of the pro-hereditarian’s too; I mean, that’s what i was getting at when i suggested that quantitative route to proving it will always be somewhat stymied; in fact, I think the qualitative to casual analysis of racial differences provides proof, or proof-enough, of the existence of HBD.
        your graph and model a few posts ago about the squalidness of contemporary popular racial discourse is dead-on and frustrating to me, too. But what those rather motley and unruly kids protesting in that Watson vid were dreading wasn’t necessarily folly, either.

        i’m sorry, i empathize in both directions on this issue; I can see things getting out of hand if things go eihter way too far. That, and possibly by the dint of my personal genetics, is why I try to be a reconcilliationist on this issue. What other choice do I really have?

      • Chuck says:

        “i don’t know; i think you know, or know well-enough, but are just incredulous toward and too far away from that view to be empathetic. their actions aren’t particularly ign orant or blind to scientific plausibility; rather…


        I’ll have to investigate. My growing suspicion is that many are quite convinced that the idea is inherently implausible. Even if on a superficial level they acknowledge that the genetic hypothesis could be true — “well, it could be true, anything could be true” — it’s not a live possibility for them, so to speak. The conviction that there couldn’t be racial genetic differences is what allows for the righteousness. Your theory that they believe the genetic hypothesis really could be true but manage to work themselves into a moralistic frenzy doesn’t seem psychologically plausible to me. This is just my qualitative assessment, of course.

  6. Chuck says:

    Speaking of brainstorming, I thought that you were supposed to work out an evolutionary model for us.

  7. nikcrit says:

    “Your theory that they believe the genetic hypothesis really could be true but manage to work themselves into a moralistic frenzy doesn’t seem psychologically plausible to me.”

    That’s a bit of a reduction of my theory; more like they acknowledge the consistencey of the findings to the genetic hypothesis; from there, they wonder about the value and priority of what specifically it measures; from there, perhaps they try to find or conceive a real value that transcends the gap.
    if the hereditarians ever lean toward this philosophy, they’d likely try to come up with some sort of biological solution to closing the gap; the leftists, on the other hand, likely try to reframe the findings as being some sort of crisis or failure of human conception, imagination and spirit.

  8. nikcrit says:

    edit: ‘real value’ should be ‘consensual value.’

    also, re. ‘my theory.’ I concede, my musings on these matters are a bit too crude and shapeless to be a bona-fide ‘theory.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s