Inside the mind of 'Honest Jim' Watson - October 19, 2007
With James Watson apologizing for his widely criticized comments on race and IQ, it hasn't excaped anyone's attention that when it comes to making incendiary remarks, he certainly has form. So Scientific American provides a very helpful 'greatest hits' list of his previous faux pas. This resource (and its seemingly constant updates) provides details of his somewhat unorthodox ideas on stupidity (it's a disease), and overweight black people (they have better sex).
Meanwhile, Wired analyses Watson's latest outburst more rigorously than most, explaining in depth the two main assumptions behind his reported views. One is that different racial groups are likely to have evolved along contrasting lines, which is not controversial at all. The other, more contentious assumption is that IQ has a heritable, biological basis — and before you can even begin to unravel that one, you have to acknowledge the fact that IQ tests are a very crude tool, having been invented by a French psychologist purely as a means of spotting the French schoolkids who might need a bit more help with their French school lessons.
The row has also raised issues about high-profile scientists in general, and whether their status gives them too much of a platform to air their personal views. A USA Today column points out that Watson isn't the only Nobellist to have spoken outside the box their specific area of expertise. Daily Telegraph science editor Roger Highfield goes a step further, putting Watson's outburst down to a hitherto underexamined medical condition called 'Nobel syndrome'.
Arguments about freedom of speech are also being re-rehearsed in light of the news that at least two of his UK speaking engagements have now been cancelled. As incendiary and deplorably unscientific as his views seem to be, there is no reason to curtail his right to free speech, says commentator is Sue Blackmore on the Guardian's comment website.
An article in the Daily Mail also quotes several high-profile science figures echoing the argument that people should be brave enough to face up to unpalatable questions about humanity. But while most of the second wave of coverage has emphasized Watson's statement apologizing for his comments, the Daily Mail - which doesn't exactly have the most liberal track record on equality issues - is apparently alone in reporting that Watson is trying to defend his views on race and IQ.
Comments
You really should learn more about the century-old science of IQ testing before offering ill-informed opinions.
The U.S. military has spent a fortune on IQ testing recruit applicants over the last 90 years because it has found, over and over again, that it is an extremely cost-effective tool for more accurately predicting performance in a host of jobs. During the fat years of easy recruiting from 1992 through 2004, the Pentagon virtually banned enlistment by anybody who scored below the 30th percentile because they were more trouble than they were worth.
Posted by: Steve Sailer | October 20, 2007 12:27 PM
Still, I wonder if he is right about it.
Posted by: Alisha Devochka | October 20, 2007 03:11 PM
So it is alright for Sean Penn, Richard Gere or Rush Limbaugh to give their uneducated opinions, but not "high profile scientists"?
Watson's opinions might not be everyone's, but political correctness should not trump the free exchange of ideas or academic inquiry.
Posted by: Thomas Mura | October 20, 2007 05:38 PM
To me his remark sounds as scientific observation/enquiry, far from being racist. Should it invite all hula bulloo?
Posted by: Agaram Sunderajan | October 23, 2007 03:52 AM
Unfortunately, this is typical of Watson. He may be brilliant, but he has never displayed much sensitivity to the feelings of others. If you have ever read "The Double Helix," you will understand what I mean.
Posted by: Ron Parry | October 23, 2007 06:10 PM