Archive for the 'Racism' Category
Did he just say what I think he said?
Watson, a most respected scientist and one of the originators of the DNA double helix theory, has come under significant fire in the news recently for condemning those of African descent as less intelligent.
Editorials and blogs ignited over his statement, asking a particular sort of question:
How could he do such a thing, as a role model and public figure? What kind of person would say something like that? Is he a racist? A bigot?
I have a different, and better, question:
Is he right?
Note: before I begin, I have been informed that some who read the following post grossly misinterpret the ultimate conclusion, and therefore my true opinion, of this question. Just so there is no confusion:
There is no conclusive evidence of any race having a greater capability of intelligence over any other. Therefore, it is my belief that no race is more intelligent than any other. We do see a disparity in the current US, but this is more likely due to socioeconomic conditions.
That being said, here is my study of the current statistics:
There is a distinct correlation, in this modern world of ours, between race and intellect. From all studies I have seen, the fairly conclusive conclusion rates the intelligence of the races as follows:
Origin (from highest to lowest)
- Far Eastern and Ashkenazi Jew
- Caucasian
- Arabian and Native American (including Hispanic)
- African and Australian Aboriginal
Source
We can see this in our stereotypes: the AZN with four eyes and a calculator wherever he goes, average white guy, Mexican laborer, Black criminal. It’s hard to not concede that stereotypes do have a ring of truth to them.
Interestingly enough, intelligence is also negatively correlated with likelyhood to be incarcerated or commit a crime. Consider the following statistics:
States with the highest prison population (per capita):
|
States according to average intelligence:
|
States according to Black population:
|
States according to religiosity (% marked “non-religious”):
|
States according to percent of women with a birth in the last year who are unmarried:
|
States according to persons below poverty level:
|
Seems to be a pattern here. I arranged each of the statistics to be in the same order as the top 5 states according to prison population per capita, and it is quite easy to see the correlation between race, intelligence, religiosity, income, and single mothers. While none of these correlations are nearly conclusive (to do so is not remotely within the scope of this post), it surely is interesting. Texas (carrying Oklahoma along, I am sure) is known here in the states for its unique judicial system and statistics. I consider both to be anomalies. If we look at the other states, we see three of the dumbest, most religious, poorest, and blackest states in the union.
It certainly would be easy to assign causality to any one pair of these statistics: they’re dumb because they’re black, they’re criminals because they’re poor, they’re unwed because they’re religious, and so on. This, however, would be fallacious - correlation is not the same as causality, and the statistics can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
What can be gleaned from these statistics, however, is that if you are black, you are more likely to be from a “deep south” state, less intelligent, have a criminal record, be religious, poor, and be, know, or have children out of wedlock.
Why? It doesn’t seem that anyone has a conclusive answer. Here’s my take:
African-Americans have been integrated (for the most part) into the rest of American society for a whopping 40 years or so. Prior to that, they were subject to segregation, and prior to that, slavery.
I agree with Mr. Watson in that I think that the root of these problems is intelligence. By my definition, an intelligent mind is one with the capability to think critically and analyze. Thinking critically tends to lead to the loss of religious adherence. Intelligence lends the foresight to avoid crime, use birth control, and to prepare for and execute the steps needed to avoid poverty and live comfortably.
Michael Vick makes for an interesting case study. Straight out of the projects, his amazing talent on the football field was recognized and rewarded… to the tune of millions of dollars. Given similar amounts of wealth, many would choose to invest to preserve it, and donate to charity to share it. Mr. Vick, however, spent his millions defending himself from the law for indulging in the barbaric, carnal, and base sport of dogfighting. His case is hardly an exception. It is old news when a sports star, musician, actor, or other celebrity finds their means stripped by scandal, crime, and other remarkably un-wise choices - landing him straight back into the projects from which he came. Without the intelligence to analyze, think critically, and make good choices, wealth is irrelevant.
The breakdown:
It seems quite clear that blacks in current America are more likely to be less intelligent. This does not, however, imply that they are without the ability to be.
I do not know, and I do not think that it is possible to conclusively know at our current level of scientific understanding, if there is a genetic glass ceiling of intelligence that differs in height based on race.
The statistics show a significant correlation between intelligence and poverty rate. I believe this to be the critical correlation.
I think there is a tendency for humans to raise their children in a similar fashion that they were raised. The rich have dynasties, the middle class constantly struggle over generations, and the poor remain poor. This may be true of intelligence as well, but must be true of the value thereof. I would contend that the poor do not value or pursue intellect as much as others, and therefore, will likely remain poor.
I’d be curious to see the statistics of black children adopted by middle-class or wealthy families (of any race) regarding crime, religiosity, etc. I’d be willing to bet that they would be in stark contrast to the statistics above.
Notes:
* I don’t capitalize “black” as it would misrepresent my view of the race. I don’t see a black person as a Black person, but as a black Person.
* I generally use masculine pronouns when referring to hypothetical or otherwise non-specific situations. I’m no misogynist, not by a long shot, but perhaps if we can piss Feminists off enough, they’ll lobby to create a gender neutral pronoun for the English language. We could really use one. In fact, in my freshman English class, we used “narf.”
* I slipped religiosity into this personal study for the fun of it. It’s a subject of great interest to me, and the statistics are indeed intriguing…