James Watson blacker then the average racist

[becomingagodo]

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3239366.ece

Apparently, James Watson has black genes and has a great grand parent of african decent.
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who provoked a public outcry by claiming black Africans were less intelligent than whites has a DNA profile with up to 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.
"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics,

On a bigger note, is their any evidence for intelligence genes? Genes that give a person superior intelligence. As when you have geniuses like Gauss and Einstein, their children don't show it. You would expect sibling of Gauss or Einstein to be mathematical geniuses, however it is really rare for a genius to have a child that is as smart as the parent.

If you look at Gausses parents they where both stupid. His farther had no mathematical skill and was stupid. Where did Gauss get his superior genes? if we assume genes equal intelligence.

[fuelair]

Do we know his father was really his father - if you know what I mean here?

[fuelair]

James Watson blacker then the average racist .

We have done genetic testing on enough racists to verify that statistic??? Did they self-identify during the testing or did the researchers find photos of them in white sheets?

[Darth Rotor]

BAGboy, learn to use "then" and "than" correctly. Than has no temporal or sequential component, it is a word used for comparative purposes.

Six is greater than three. (To appeal to your alleged mathematical skills.) Comparative.

If P then Q.

Way back then, I was an agnostic.

Temporal or sequential character.

Action required: Fix your title.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3239366.ece

Apparently, James Watson has black genes and has a great grand parent of african decent.
Who effing cares?
On a bigger note, is their any evidence for intelligence genes? Genes that give a person superior intelligence.
I suggest you take a look at the study done at the University of Utah, on the intellectual prowess of some of the Ashkenazim. It isn't the last word on the topic, but some intriguing correlations came to light. Einstein? Yep.

One of the issues the study highlighted is how mixed all the gene pools are, and how very hard it is to find a relatively isolated social group that can be tested by such a method, and has discrete genetic markers. One source of some of the criticism of the study is the old debate of how efective IQ tests are in ferreting out intelligence.
As when you have geniuses like Gauss and Einstein, their children don't show it. You would expect sibling of Gauss or Einstein to be mathematical geniuses, however it is really rare for a genius to have a child that is as smart as the parent.
Consider the term "regression to the mean" and apply it to genetic probability.
If you look at Gausses parents they where both stupid. His farther had no mathematical skill and was stupid. Where did Gauss get his superior genes? if we assume genes equal intelligence.
The irony meter pegged out in the red, just now, due to the guy who calls others stupid posting that rubbish.

DR

[Skeptical Greg]

I think someone wandered into the wrong forum ..


Mod ?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm calling him J-Dub from now on.

[Loss Leader]

On a bigger note, is their any evidence for intelligence genes? Genes that give a person superior intelligence. As when you have geniuses like Gauss and Einstein, their children don't show it. You would expect sibling of Gauss or Einstein to be mathematical geniuses, however it is really rare for a genius to have a child that is as smart as the parent.

If you look at Gausses parents they where both stupid. His farther had no mathematical skill and was stupid. Where did Gauss get his superior genes? if we assume genes equal intelligence.


Actually, children tend towards the mean. If you are smarter than average, your children will probably be less intelligent than you. If you are dumber than average, your children will probably be smarter.

Same thing with height - tall people tend to have shorter children, short people tend to have taller.

So, genetics does not indicate that a genius should have genius siblings or childen. Geniuses are statistical outliers and will very likely not be surrounded by a cluster of geniuses in their family.

[Beerina]

James Watson blacker then the average racist .

We have done genetic testing on enough racists to verify that statistic???

That crossed my mind, too. Disturbed minds think alike!

[Beerina]

Actually, children tend towards the mean. If you are smarter than average, your children will probably be less intelligent than you. If you are dumber than average, your children will probably be smarter.

Not necessarily. A given family's genetic code might, say, have an "average" height for males of 6'2". A 6'1" male would be higher than average, but below average for that family. Thus if they had 10 kids, they themselves might average taller than him, to say nothing of taller than the general population.

It's shifting this "average" for a gene pool that is one of the core features of evolution.

[ravdin]

It's an interesting article, but your title is ridiculous. It conveys the common (and completely wrong) implication that black people can't be racist.

[becomingagodo]

It's an interesting article, but your title is ridiculous. It conveys the common (and completely wrong) implication that black people can't be racist.
Yeah, but isn't that reverse racism. I know black people can be racist, however that was the witties thing I could come up with.
I suggest you take a look at the study done at the University of Utah, on the intellectual prowess of some of the Ashkenazim. It isn't the last word on the topic, but some intriguing correlations came to light. Einstein? Yep.

I did and it was dissapointing.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yeah, but isn't that reverse racism. I know black people can be racist, however that was the witties thing I could come up with.
Leave the wit to the professionals.

[ravdin]

Yeah, but isn't that reverse racism.

At the risk of derailing the thread, there is no such thing as "reverse racism".

[becomingagodo]

At the risk of derailing the thread, there is no such thing as "reverse racism".
Yes their is, when some one is racist and someone accuses the person of racism and then the person calls the person a reverse racist.
Leave the wit to the professionals.
:cool:

[ravdin]

Yes their is, when some one is racist and someone accuses the person of racism and then the person calls the person a reverse racist.

I'm having trouble parsing your sentence. I can't tell which of the two hypothetical people is making the claim of "reverse racism". Either way, the claim would be absurd. This only helps bolster my argument.

[slingblade]

If racism is defined as a system of dominance and oppression based on outward physical appearance, then blacks can be biased, bigoted, or prejudiced against whites, but not racist, since blacks as a socio-cultural group have not (yet) ever been in a position of dominance and oppression over whites. Thus, "reverse racism" does not exist, but bigotry, bias, and prejudice certainly do.

[skeptifem]

If racism is defined as a system of dominance and oppression based on outward physical appearance, then blacks can be biased, bigoted, or prejudiced against whites, but not racist, since blacks as a socio-cultural group have not (yet) ever been in a position of dominance and oppression over whites. Thus, "reverse racism" does not exist, but bigotry, bias, and prejudice certainly do.


remember the district attorney in new orleans firing almost every white person under him and replacing them with blacks? he lost the lawsuit and resigned (http://www.wdsu.com/news/14458631/detail.html) , from what other articles say there are a lot of powerful black people in new orleans so its certainly possible there (using your definition of racism of course). I am not saying white people have it as bad as blacks when it comes to racism (like nothing near as bad) but acting like this sort of thing doesnt exsist doesnt do any good.

[ravdin]

If racism is defined as a system of dominance and oppression based on outward physical appearance, then blacks can be biased, bigoted, or prejudiced against whites, but not racist, since blacks as a socio-cultural group have not (yet) ever been in a position of dominance and oppression over whites. Thus, "reverse racism" does not exist, but bigotry, bias, and prejudice certainly do.


As tempted as I am to respond to that, I don't want to further derail the original topic. Maybe it would be more appropriate to split this thread or open a new one.

[mijopaalmc]

As tempted as I am to respond to that, I don't want to further derail the original topic. Maybe it would be more appropriate to split this thread or open a new one.

Done.

Come and discuss in Does "reverse racism" exist? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101595).

[Loss Leader]

Not necessarily. A given family's genetic code might, say, have an "average" height for males of 6'2". A 6'1" male would be higher than average, but below average for that family. Thus if they had 10 kids, they themselves might average taller than him, to say nothing of taller than the general population.

It's shifting this "average" for a gene pool that is one of the core features of evolution.


I didn't understand your example. My point was that, on average, children are more likely to tend away from the parent and toward the mean than away from it. Obviously, a tall family will likely have many people over the mean and obviously it will produce ocasional outliers who are farther away from the mean than their parents; but the total average effect will be down towards the mean.