Jump to content

Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo


GM
 Share

Recommended Posts

Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

 

In 2007, Nobel Prize winning US scientist James Watson was quoted referring to research suggesting that black people were less intelligent than other races. His comments caused a storm of controversy, Watson was condemned.

 

Although he apologised for the offence he caused, his public engagements were cancelled and he left his British speaking tour in disgrace.

 

Meanwhile, right wing websites hailed him as the new Galileo - a martyr to political correctness that was concealing the fact that there is indeed evidence that shows different races score differently in IQ tests. But are the tests biased? Is race really a scientific category at all?

 

In this documentary, part of the season Race: Science's Last Taboo, Rageh Omaar sets out to find out the truth, meeting scientists who believe the research supports the view that races can be differentiated as well as those who vehemently oppose this view. By daring to ask the difficult questions, Omaar is able to explode the myths about race and IQ and reveal what he thinks are important lessons for society.

 

Should be interesting - maybe? Is there something in the zeitgeist at the moment that is making people more preoccupied with race issues than normal? What with BNP making headlines and getting on BBC's Question Time, and then this intriguing series on Channel 4 next week...and I've been asking myself a lot of questions about my own innate "racism" or prejudices lately, I mean, we all do it to varying degrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

 

In 2007, Nobel Prize winning US scientist James Watson was quoted referring to research suggesting that black people were less intelligent than other races. His comments caused a storm of controversy, Watson was condemned.

 

Although he apologised for the offence he caused, his public engagements were cancelled and he left his British speaking tour in disgrace.

 

Meanwhile, right wing websites hailed him as the new Galileo - a martyr to political correctness that was concealing the fact that there is indeed evidence that shows different races score differently in IQ tests. But are the tests biased? Is race really a scientific category at all?

 

In this documentary, part of the season Race: Science's Last Taboo, Rageh Omaar sets out to find out the truth, meeting scientists who believe the research supports the view that races can be differentiated as well as those who vehemently oppose this view. By daring to ask the difficult questions, Omaar is able to explode the myths about race and IQ and reveal what he thinks are important lessons for society.

 

Should be interesting - maybe? Is there something in the zeitgeist at the moment that is making people more preoccupied with race issues than normal? What with BNP making headlines and getting on BBC's Question Time, and then this intriguing series on Channel 4 next week...and I've been asking myself a lot of questions about my own innate "racism" or prejudices lately, I mean, we all do it to varying degrees.

 

Financial uncertainty and unemployment. It's always been like that and a tedious and boring cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

 

Intelligence testing is skewed culturally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

i don't mind sounding racist if i have the means to back up my argument. also there are plenty on here who i'd like to think would back me up is saying i have many times debated for the non-racist side.
Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

The "racism" aspect comes into play when you ascribe a normative value or hierarchy to different peoples' aptitudes based upon their race - does the same apply when you consider their genetic construction? Is that also racist?

 

???

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

The "racism" aspect comes into play when you ascribe a normative value or hierarchy to different peoples' aptitudes based upon their race - does the same apply when you consider their genetic construction? Is that also racist?

 

???

yes but it would then have a basis.

 

also as i've saifd it would be a generalisation so not employing someone as they weren't up to the job is ok..not employing based on their colour/race is racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

 

Intelligence testing is skewed culturally.

 

Intelligence testing is a load of bollocks basically. No-one really knows what intelligence is, it's unquantifiable. Attempts to quantify it will inevitably skew what it actually is to a great degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

 

Intelligence testing is skewed culturally.

 

Intelligence testing is a load of bollocks basically. No-one really knows what intelligence is, it's unquantifiable. Attempts to quantify it will inevitably skew what it actually is to a great degree.

i have a feeling the prog will go for more than just an intelligence test.
Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

 

Intelligence testing is skewed culturally.

 

Intelligence testing is a load of bollocks basically. No-one really knows what intelligence is, it's unquantifiable. Attempts to quantify it will inevitably skew what it actually is to a great degree.

i have a feeling the prog will go for more than just an intelligence test.

 

Obviously, but it will find it hard to draw any decent conclusions. The interesting thing about intelligence is that it's quite easy to say whether one person is more intelligent than another, but very hard to explain why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it'll be worth a watch.

 

interesting that when in almost a given that black people are better suited physically for some sports and whites for others that we aren't allowed to question wether the same works for intelligence or social traits.

 

obviously it would be a generalisation.

 

Shak's more than happy to question that.

 

It is an interesting one. Hard to articulate thought processes along those lines without soundly heavily racist. Makes you question your own assumptions too.

 

Intelligence testing is skewed culturally.

 

Intelligence testing is a load of bollocks basically. No-one really knows what intelligence is, it's unquantifiable. Attempts to quantify it will inevitably skew what it actually is to a great degree.

Agreed, I don't think IQ tests mean anything, I did mine and got 153 but I wouldn't say I'm significantly more intelligient than most, I can't even form sentences correctly ffs, hate reading books, just basically spend my spare time watching TV, getting pissed and playing computer games (which I am also quite shit at).  I'm good at problem solving but thats about it, it doesn't mean I could invent a new form of energy or anything.  You can only truly measure intelligience when someones old and thats basically just looking at what they achieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very intelligent people have achieved absolutely f*** all though.

 

Yeah, I was going to disagree with that bit as well.  Barring obvious examples it's very difficult to say one person is more intelligent than another especially when you consider intelligence is such a broad term.

 

Unless we have any epistemologists on here?  ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very intelligent people have achieved absolutely f*** all though.

Yes and Einstein's IQ was quite high but not genius high was about 130 iirc.  I'm trying to say it's people who think differently who are truly intelligient obviously not Jay Jay Sea different but can see things from a different perspective.  you can be the best person at maths in the world but if you don't know how to apply it its bollocks all use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very intelligent people have achieved absolutely f*** all though.

Yes and Einstein's IQ was quite high but not genius high was about 130 iirc.  I'm trying to say it's people who think differently who are truly intelligient obviously not Jay Jay Sea different but can see things from a different perspective.  you can be the best person at maths in the world but if you don't know how to apply it its bollocks all use.

 

Not true on maths btw, most pure mathematitians aren't even interested in the applications, they just study for the sake of study and push the boundaries. It's the less "intelligent" people who couldn't ever dream of doing the maths who find a use for it when they stumble across something they can't do.

 

The interesting thing is how I can generally rank people in terms of intelligence without much trouble despite having no quantifiable basis for doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very intelligent people have achieved absolutely f*** all though.

Yes and Einstein's IQ was quite high but not genius high was about 130 iirc.  I'm trying to say it's people who think differently who are truly intelligient obviously not Jay Jay Sea different but can see things from a different perspective.  you can be the best person at maths in the world but if you don't know how to apply it its bollocks all use.

 

Not true on maths btw, most pure mathematitians aren't even interested in the applications, they just study for the sake of study and push the boundaries. It's the less "intelligent" people who couldn't ever dream of doing the maths who find a use for it when they stumble across something they can't do.

 

The interesting thing is how I can generally rank people in terms of intelligence without much trouble despite having no quantifiable basis for doing so.

oh shit!

 

look mowen...i'm err not erm really like this in real life man (don't say man ,man...fuck)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very intelligent people have achieved absolutely f*** all though.

Yes and Einstein's IQ was quite high but not genius high was about 130 iirc.  I'm trying to say it's people who think differently who are truly intelligient obviously not Jay Jay Sea different but can see things from a different perspective.  you can be the best person at maths in the world but if you don't know how to apply it its bollocks all use.

 

Not true on maths btw, most pure mathematitians aren't even interested in the applications, they just study for the sake of study and push the boundaries. It's the less "intelligent" people who couldn't ever dream of doing the maths who find a use for it when they stumble across something they can't do.

 

The interesting thing is how I can generally rank people in terms of intelligence without much trouble despite having no quantifiable basis for doing so.

oh shit!

 

look mowen...i'm err not erm really like this in real life man (don't say man ,man...fuck)

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the list is me first and then a long list of people ranked according to how much they agree with me. Nah, it's a weird one, you feel as though you inherantly know how intelligent people are when you've known them for a while but it's very hard to say what that intelligence is and how it manifests itself. It's obvious when it's there though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the list is me first and then a long list of people ranked according to how much they agree with me. Nah, it's a weird one, you feel as though you inherantly know how intelligent people are when you've known them for a while but it's very hard to say what that intelligence is and how it manifests itself. It's obvious when it's there though.

I know what you mean.

 

Glasses + 1 point

Ugly +1 point

Charver -1 point

Talks posh + 1 point

Smells odd +1 point

Has alot of books +1 point

Crap at sport +1 point

 

this type of thing?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...