>>31
I must admit I didn't, but I know what happened and I know that allegations that he stole anything are ridiculous and a smear against one of the world's greatest scientists.
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf
The paper is here, and as you can read he cites Rosalind Franklin's unpublished works. I know that he once stated that she might have been first, if she had not been foolish about not working with someone else.
So, since you did read them (I take it that's so), did he say something along the lines of:
Besides Watson and Crick basically stole their findings from Rosalind Franklin.
or is that a ridiculous straw man for "her worked has helped us"?
>>32
I know you're just trolling, but I'll respond anyhow as though you weren't on the chance that you'll actually help make my point.
I also think egalitarians are trolling, their position is ridiculous.
Saying you read most peer reviewed papers on intelligence says absolutely nothing as to the credibility of your arguments. Unless you're planning on citing them, don't bother trying to bludgeon people with the fact that you think you know a lot.
Fair enough.
The article that was being considered was written by a blogger [...] trying to say.
1) You don't know what GNXP is. Get a clue.
2) Did you even read the article? He was talking about the shitstorm when he mentioned that he wrote ideas along the same lines in his book. The rest of the article is about corroborating his points with data.
The reason the scientific community at large shunned those remarks is because Watson was trying to say that being black had a causal effect on the intelligence of the individual.
The reason is political correctness and Marxism in academia. The scientific community claims are dealt with in the article.
So far as I know, there is no such link, and none has been shown by any valid research.
Is 100 years of mental testing irrelevant, then? They consistently show a gap between Blacks and Whites. Libfags blame it on culture, because they have no clue what IQ tests measure, namely the innate ability to do cognitively complex tasks unrelated to knowledge (see "The g Factor: the Science of Mental Abilities", Arthur R. Jensen, Westport, CN: Praeger, 1998), or they are in denial.
Oh, I see, you can dismiss anything you don't like as invalid, clever. Studies are cited in the GNXP post, but I can deliver more if you want. Mental testing has NEVER pointed towards equality in intelligence, and people who claim it's culturally biased or measures "culture" are fucking insane and looking for excuses.
Scientifically this means that an important genetecist cannot get up and say, without negative consequences, that it's true, and that social policy should be formed around that fact, which is exactly what Watson did, and why he deserves to lose respect for it.
Heresy, oh wow. Especially bad when it's someone important. Oh well, no one is safe any more.
As per [...] I'm not trying to smear him, but I don't think his comments are defensible for someone in his position.
You fucking said that they stole their findings, so you did smear him. For someone in his position, it would be a shame to be silenced due to political correctness. Considering the state of filth that academia is in right now, it's not surprising this happens.
His comments are very defensible, check out the GNXP post. Let me know if you have any questions afterwards.
I don't know anything about him being 1/8 black either, nor do I care if he's 100% black.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece
What he said was opinionated gibberish based on innaccurate interpretation of data.
So you mean the fact that he attributes racial differences in IQ to mostly racial differences and not "culture" makes him inaccurate? Or do you deny that the gap exists?
That's bad science, and if he's going to say it's good science, then he's going to lose the respect of the scientific community.
Bad science is what his critics are doing.
In before:
1) Races don't exist(, the only difference being skin colour).
2) Intelligence can't be measured, but it would show that evolution stopped at the neck to satisfy my ideology.
3) Intelligence can be measured, but is biased due to culture else it would show everyone equal.
...
All dealt with in the GNXP post.
Anyway, one more question. Would genes regulating intelligence being found, and their having different frequencies in different races be enough to destroy your idiocy? Not that we need them, since consistent mental testing results are enough. Or are you pulling an "irreducible complexity" creationist argument?