42

James Watson Nobel Prize winner for his discovery of the structure of DNA made the following claim in a 2007 Sunday Times interview:

"[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

He told the newspaper people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence but that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

James Watson has been ostracized since his 2007 remarks, and has sold his Nobel Prize for income.

Watson’s racial theories of IQ have some academic support, such as in Richard J. Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s controversial book 'The Bell Curve,' this remains one of the most contentious [...]

“I am not a racist in a conventional way,” he told the Financial Times.

“I apologize...the [Sunday Times] journalist somehow wrote that I worried about the people in Africa because of their low IQ – and you're not supposed to say that.”

Does IQ testing show that blacks on average score worse than whites?

Community
  • 1
user1873
  • 8,931
  • 42
  • 81
  • 3
    I suppose a Nobel Prize winner making a claim that ultimately ostracized him from the scientific community, made it onto the NY Times, Guardian, etc. is notable enough. – user1873 Dec 08 '14 at 04:24
  • 45
    Part of the problem here is that IQ tests aren't really an accurate measure of anything other than the ability to score well on IQ tests. – Shadur Dec 08 '14 at 05:25
  • 31
    Most of the problem here is that the question, as worded, ignores the confounding factors in a misleading and inflammatory fashion. Correlation does not imply causation. James Watson was [lambasted for these statements](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html). A better question Watson might have asked would be: "Does the greater poverty, poorer education and social stereotyping have an effect on the ability of minority groups to score well on IQ tests?" – Oddthinking Dec 08 '14 at 06:16
  • 8
    Such claims seem to originate from the book "The Bell Curve" by Hernstein and Murray, however they don't use IQ tests, but some sort of aptitude test that is even more culturally/educationally biased. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a criticism "The mismeasurement of man". A few years ago I looked at the Bell Curve (to address a USENET claim) and found they don't even control properly for socioeconomic factors when addressing that particular question. I'd say the answer is "no". –  Dec 08 '14 at 10:15
  • 4
    From a statistical point of view (I am a statistician), the average scores of any two groups is never going to be *exactly* the same, so even if there was a difference, that doesn't mean the difference is of any *practical* significance, even if it is of merely statistical significance. –  Dec 08 '14 at 10:17
  • 4
    @Shadur That's a patently false myth. IQ is strongly correlated with height, physical ability, chance of getting a degree especially in physics, creativity, weather you can complete a linear algebra course, weather or not you can succeed in complex jobs, your countries socio-economical upbringing particularly in relation to nutrition. It is a fantastic tool for measuring intelligence. – Kit Sunde Dec 10 '14 at 17:36
  • The comparison is unfair. It would be like pointing out that people with bigger feet are smarter. Children have smaller feet and are not generally as smart as educated adults. Likewise, richer people tend to have a better education, it doesn't mean that certain groups do not have the capacity to be as smart. – iantresman Dec 10 '14 at 17:40
  • 1
    I note that the title says blacks < whites, but the quotes merely say blacks != whites. Did Watson make this clearer in context? – Oddthinking Dec 10 '14 at 23:05
  • There is a popular racist thesis that slaves were treated like cattle and bred selectively for physical strength. The rationale is that breeding for strength may compromise intelligence, so descendants are physically superior and intellectually inferior. This idea is used to justify several racist non-sequiturs. – Paulo Scardine Dec 11 '14 at 03:35
  • 1
    @oddthinking It's pretty clearly implied, though -- he says he's worried about the "prospects of africa" because everyone except him mistakenly believes "their intelligence is the same as ours". I'm not sure *what* we're expected to infer other than that he believes Africans are less intelligent... – Shadur Dec 11 '14 at 08:01
  • 6
    Kit - that has been debunked over and over. It is not a fantastic tool for measuring intelligence. It measures the ability of the individual to score well on IQ tests, and in the western world there is **some** correlation with the other items you mentioned, however these correlate better with other factors. – Rory Alsop Dec 11 '14 at 09:07
  • 1
    @Oddthinking, if you read the question, it is clearly in there, "I worried about the people in Africa **because of their low IQ**" – user1873 Dec 11 '14 at 15:23
  • @PauloScardine, that wouldn't explain the IQ of black African descendants (in Africa), unless you are implying that the Africans that captured and sold the slaves to European slave traders where also specifically capturing/breeding slaves for physical strength. Was there some mass migration of slaves back to Africa? – user1873 Dec 11 '14 at 15:28
  • @Shadur: Yes, I might be being over-reaching in my attempt to ensure he isn't being attacked over a strawman. If his point is something like "Ethnically African people have different strengths to ethnically European people: Of the [multiple intelligences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences) they out-perform each other on different axes." it may well still be wrong, may still be considered racist, (and remember: this is speculation that that is what he may have implied/intended) but it won't match the question title. – Oddthinking Dec 11 '14 at 15:49
  • @user1873: one can argue that given the level of permanent tribal warfare, evolution would favor the ferocious instead of the wise. Pseudo scientific justifications for racism are very common specially since nazism. About mass migrations back to Africa, see [Liberia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia): it was established by citizens of the United States as a colony for former African American slaves and their free black descendants. – Paulo Scardine Dec 11 '14 at 15:49
  • @user1873: Yes, and again, I may be trying to be overly-generous to him, but the sentence context is kind of convoluted. He doesn't say that, so much as quote a journalist quoting (possibly misquoting?) him. I don't want to seem like I am defending him, so much as double-checking we tackle his actual argument, not a journalist misquote of his argument. – Oddthinking Dec 11 '14 at 15:52
  • @KitSunde whether, not weather. – Andy Dec 13 '14 at 18:04
  • 2
    @RoryAlsop It hasn't been debunked unless your main reading material is Malcolm Gladwell. Psychometrics is alive and well and actively publishing research with regards to IQ and measuring intelligence. Here's a talk with citations from 2010 that covers most of the things I mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8 – Kit Sunde Dec 13 '14 at 18:22
  • 2
    Kit and Rory and Shadur, I don't think this question at all is asking about the usefulness of IQ tests. It's about *is* there a difference in how the two populations test, and possibly also about *why* that difference exists. – magnesium Dec 15 '14 at 01:17
  • 1
    @magnesium I agree with you, I'm merely rebutting a highly up voted comment that's making un-cited claims. We really should discover **why** because just leaving it at that is unfriendly to the point of being counter-productive for the site and worst case could help further discriminatory world views. – Kit Sunde Dec 15 '14 at 03:58
  • @PauloScardine I've heard this, but I wonder how prevalent slave breeding actually was. When we say breeding in this context we mean like how farmers with a prized stallion stud it out for a fee, because farmers with mares would like the same traits in a resulting foal. Did slavers actually do that to any meaningful measure? Maybe more in late US slaving history, when breeding and such was better understood, but in 1700s and earlier? That leaves only a few generations affected, plus the 5 or 6 generations since abolition to drift out any traits possibly gained ... Sounds like a good question. –  Sep 05 '19 at 23:45

2 Answers2

36

Yes.

See 30 years of research on race differences in cognitive ability (2005).

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute.

More recently, it has been observed that "[t]he IQ gap between Blacks and Whites has been reduced by 0.33 SD". They describe the gap further:

It is important to note that there is a dramatic decline of Black IQ with age. Four-year-old Blacks are only about 5 points below Whites of the same age, whereas at age 24, Blacks are 17 points below Whites.

magnesium
  • 625
  • 6
  • 5
  • 1
    The notable claim (which is the subject of the question) is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" ... which might imply/require a genetic factor. Ditto the comment about "everyone was born with equal intelligence": IMO born implies an argument about nature as opposed to nurture. – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 00:23
  • 1
    So the quote which says, "The question that still remains is etc." doesn't really answer that question an all, does it? – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 00:25
  • 1
    What do you think of the sentence that's a few sentences on from that one in ibid., i.e. "As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation”" -- is that a fair assessment/summary of the current state of knowledge on the subject: that "There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation"? Or would that be just cherry-picking a misleading quote? – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 00:27
  • 2
    Hi! "The notable claim (which is the subject of the question) is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" ... which might imply/require a genetic factor." I'd say that's *a* notable claim. But there are more in there, and the one that is bolded and that makes up the title is just whether there *is* a difference. I'm just answering what the question asks. I'm not getting into every little detail that you might be able to criticize about the quotes. – magnesium Dec 11 '14 at 02:42
  • 1
    "So the quote which says, "The question that still remains is etc." doesn't really answer that question an all, does it?" That is correct. I think my first two quotes answer the question. The third quote was only to emphasize that guessing about reasons is a separate thing that is not answered yet. – magnesium Dec 11 '14 at 02:44
  • 1
    "What do you think of the sentence that's a few sentences on from that one in ibid...." - I think that's a fair assessment of the current consensus. Your own answer is consistent with my understanding of the research. – magnesium Dec 11 '14 at 02:46
  • I think your answer is a better summary. I chose that quote to attempt to show that the question about *why* is still outstanding, but as far as I can tell, today, the uncertainty about *why* is between various environmental factors and not so much about genetic factors. It was a bad quote to highlight what I was trying to highlight! I'll remove it. – magnesium Dec 11 '14 at 02:48
  • 3
    Your answer needs to cover confounding factors if it's going to be as definite as "yes". As it stands, it's not convincing. – Sklivvz Dec 11 '14 at 03:50
  • 2
    @Sklivvz I don't understand what you're saying about "confounding factors". Isn't accounting for "confounding factors" necessary iff you want to allege causation instead of just correlation? IMO this answer needn't account for confounding factors, because it's only trying to allege correlation and not causation. – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 05:02
  • @Sklivvz What aren't you convinced of? – magnesium Dec 11 '14 at 06:49
  • 1
    The answer needs to examine the study to see if it they accounted for confounding factors. It doesn't disambiguate between correlation and causation. The claim does imply causation. – Sklivvz Dec 11 '14 at 08:54
  • 1
    To be more specific "everyone is not born with equal intelligence" (the claim) is clearly about causation. An answer about correlation is not appropriate -- even more so if it confuses (or does not discern) the two. – Sklivvz Dec 11 '14 at 09:46
  • 13
    Maybe I don't get your emphasis on claims and notable, but I commented above: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/24056/does-iq-testing-show-that-blacks-on-average-score-worse-than-whites/24092?noredirect=1#comment93418_24092 The asker showed some quotes asked a specific question "*Does IQ testing show that blacks on average score worse than whites?*", and I answered it. It's an excellent skeptical question to ask. If somebody claims causation (like the quote might be doing), it makes sense to first ask if there even is an effect that needs explaining. – magnesium Dec 11 '14 at 14:12
  • Supposedly 8-12 year olds show an even smaller difference (0.055) http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/levitt-and-fryer-on-race-and-iq.html – Kit Sunde Dec 15 '14 at 04:02
  • 3
    This research shows differences between black and white populations, but does not attribute them to skin colour (i.e. genetics). Indeed, as ChrisW's answer notes, the differences are likely due to environmental factors, so it really depends if you are asking about a particular black population or people with certain genetic traits generally. –  Oct 02 '15 at 11:25
  • 1
    @MoJo Moreover skin color doesn't even correspond to genetics. Racial groups are not genetic groups. The study doesn't tell you anything about genetics, period. – Era Apr 29 '16 at 18:47
  • I'll point out that the study that this answer posts is for *African-Americans*, and as a group, African-Americans have had significant amounts of interbreeding with white people. IIRC, the statistics for full-blooded Africans are worse - I've seen people quoting figures that indicate that they've got an average IQ of 70, compared to the 85 of African-Americans (1 SD for IQ = 15 points). – nick012000 Jun 26 '19 at 10:36
20

I think James Watson's claim is that there is a difference, and that that difference is caused by genetics.

The quoted claim includes:

  • inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa
  • people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence

His claim appears to be contrary to current summaries on the matter, for which Wikipedia summarizes:

Genetics of race and intelligence ends with,

A 2005 literature review article by Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time".[109] Hunt (2010, p. 447) and Mackintosh (2011, p. 344) concurred, both scholars noting that while several environmental factors have been shown to influence the IQ gap, the evidence for a genetic influence has been circumstantial, and according to Mackintosh negligible. Mackintosh however suggests that it may never become possible to account satisfyingly for the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors. The 2012 review by the Nisbett et al. (2012) concluded that "Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range". Hunt and several other researchers however maintain that genetic causes cannot be ruled out and that new evidence may yet show a genetic contribution to the gap. Hunt concurs with Rushton and Jensen who considered the 100% environmental hypothesis to be impossible. Nonetheless, Nisbett and colleagues (2012) consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh does not find this view to be unreasonable.[22]

These statements are more recent than the 2007 claim in the OP.

In summary they're not ruling out the possibility of new evidence in the future (for the theory that a difference in average IQ is genetic instead of environmental), however "several environmental factors have been shown to influence the IQ gap", and genetic factors haven't been isolated such that they'd reliably predict these differences.

ChrisW
  • 26,552
  • 5
  • 108
  • 141
  • 3
    Wikipedia as source material for this question is particularly questionable. –  Jun 26 '19 at 13:34
  • What's "particularly questionable" IMO is whether this answer is on-topic: but [How to proceed when implicit and explicit claims diverge](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3916/2703) suggests it is -- the "explicit" claim being "their IQ is lower", and "implicit", "because they're black". This answer only addressed the implicit claim, so IMO referencing Wikipedia (analogous to [referencing a high-school level text book](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3558/2703)) might suffice. See also [Is Wikipedia a valid reference?](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/289/2703) – ChrisW Jun 26 '19 at 14:49