Watson, intelligence and autism

Post Reply New Topic

And I would agree in general, but in this specific case, it is clear that Watson was speaking of intelligence in generalities and saying that those of an African heritage are inferior. Really, what you'd rather he said is irrelevant: what he said, quite clearly, is blacks are inferior to whites. To add more fuel to that, I'll repeat the other part of what he said:

Black employees are less competent. I mean, it's clear that's what he believes from this comment, I think. At least, from the way it was presented.

FWIW, I did take a look at the comment he did in the Independant last week, I think it's worth reading. I also think it's clear from his opening that he reads the article in the same way I do, what he disputes is that he ever said it at all, or at least he implies it's not the sort of thing he would normally say:

Now, whether you believe him that he doesn't actually believe this or not, I guess that's an open question. He kind of hedges, saying he's bewildered by his original words (if they were his), but then goes on to say that he didn't mean it that way... a straight out denial would have been clearer.
The rest of the commentary is, actually, pretty outstanding, and I'd recommend you all to read through it. His points about the possible controversies and ethical questions that will likely come out of genetics research are well made, and deserve to be thought about.

Here. Go nuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Af ... scientists

How about Philip Emeagwali, the Nigerian who deserves much of the credit for creating the supercomputer as we know it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Emeagwali

Comparing intelligence based on race isn't particularly helpful to society. But to even compare European success to African success, one would have to take account a lot of things, like resources, for starters. Just with food, Europe has the upper hand. Africa didn't/doesn't have things like farm animals or even much farmable land. Technology is hard to create when people are either starving or migrating in search of food. A more steady food source alone would give Africans a chance to catch up. Add more medicine, better housing, and more access to schools and you'd have continent much more able to repair itself.

A similar thing can be said of Western countries, that intelligence(or at least the development of it), is often directly proportional to amount of resources available, be it food, shelter, or just good schools.

Sounds good. I'll have to look that one up. Thanks.

Black employees are less competent. I mean, it's clear that's what he believes from this comment, I think. At least, from the way it was presented. [quote]

OK, I concede - I admit I didn't see that bit. That sentence is pretty damning, if he was correctly quoted. (Not to mention untrue, in my personal experience!)

But the general issue in an argument like this is confusing the word "identical" with "equal".

People are all equal, but we are not all identical.

Consider the statement "On average, NT's are better at team sports than aspies".

Would aspies regard that statement as (a) likely to be true or (b) offensive?

I would suggest that more people would answer (a) than (b).

But if you were to substitute "blacks" for "NT's" and "whites" for "aspies" - all hell would break loose!

The issue is, even if the statement is false, why would it be seen as offensive? (as opposed to just a theory to be disproved.)

Different does not mean inferior - it just means different. We of all people should know that.

And the suggestion that the type of intelligence a person has is related to the culture in which they grew up (i.e. that on average they would tend to be good at the kind of things they would need to be good at in their daily lives) is just an interesting idea - no more, no less. So why should further research in this area not be carried out? Why all the hysteria?

Maybe because over the last few hundred years, some races have been forced into slavery and were portrayed as subhuman or inhuman? And maybe because every effort to remove prejudice and inequality has been met with resistance, and there are still people longing for the good ole days when it was OK to say that whites are superior, while other races are inferior? Maybe because of all the pseudoscience that was used to support that racism, and the tendency of the public not to understand subtle distinctions when it is so much easier to resort to faulty generalizations about huge, diverse groups like 'the blacks'?

Just a thought.

In terms of NTs vs Aspies, there are clear differences in personalities (although generalizing won't always help an NT understand a particular Aspie. In terms of blacks vs whites, there are also some clear differences. Blacks produce melanin in their skin continously, while whites produce it in response to ultraviolet light. If you go beyond that difference, you will find that the differences between various tribes of whites is greater than the average difference between whites and blacks (and the differences between various tribes of blacks is greater than the average difference between whites and blacks). Race (especially as it is constructed in America) is a very poor predictor of anything beyond a few superficial physical traits like skin, eye color, or hair. Such a poor predictor that it is useless. Maybe we could use whether a groundhog sees his shadow, or how thick the bands on wooly caterpillars are as better predictors.

WHAT the heck does a MPP system in 1980 have to do with supercomputers in 1972(cray) or the IBM systems, or earlier?

A TRUE Supercomputer is made to process things serially VERY fast!

An MPP system tries to break things up into smaller chunks and may process VERY slowly, but achieves its speed by having so much work done all at once.

Heck, the language his MPP system used is not known for doing things fast. Comparing a super computer to an MPP system is like comparing einstein to a couple classes of highschool students. Given the right type of work, the highschool classes may do better faster, but it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Besides, it doesn't seem to say ANYTHING about ANY kind of computer, but for efficient "Oil reservoir modeling" on one! The computer was a commercial computer, and he was at a UNIVERSITY! He didn't even REALLY win!



So what did his achievement REALLY achieve? Anyway, I am just trying to clarify things!

You would have to ask the Gordon Bell Institute for more details, but they apparently think that he did make a significant contribution to computing science. The fact that the advance came through a particular numerical modeling application doesn't matter one way or the other. You say he didn't even win, but the people that gave him the prize say he did. Hmmm.... who should I believe?

No problem. It can be tough to cut through everything sometimes to see what someone's saying, especially if we're taking snippets of articles and quoting them with little context. It was as a whole that the thing really sounded damning.

Indeed, and while I doubt anyone's taken the time to study it, the results wouldn't surprise anyone if someone did.

Well, part of that is because it wouldn't be true. Ask any American Football team. Just make sure you've got an escape route after you've asked the question.
Thing is, there isn't even a dispute on many physical aspects - blacks have a higher bone density than whites, in general, which causes muscle mass to develop in a different way. That's why you see a lot of black runners and field sportspeople, but very few champion black swimmers. That's not particularly controversial.

Ah, but in general. There are certain criteria upon which the worth of a person is judged still, and also historically. General intelligence is one of those criteria. Just look at some of the language used during the era of slavery. You'll find a lot about how negroes are not intelligent enough to be allowed to think for themselves, their stupidity and lack of intelligence is cited as what makes them inferior, and of course therefore why it's OK to enslave them. They can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and so as a mere shadow of a white man, you can just use them as property and labour. So you already have a historical precident of using intelligence as a justification for the most horrible crimes. Making the statement recalls that past, that's why it's offensive, and not just something incorrect to be refuted.

I think the issue here is that there is a concept of "general" intelligence. The ability of someone to accurately complete any given task, to reason and form the concepts that they need to get by in day to day life. Sure, there are outliers for whom you can't reasonably talk about a general intelligence because they skew so heavily toward one particular aspect (autists and those with AS would, of course, be a good example of that), but for the vast majority of the population, while they may have some aspects they're better at than others, there is a general intelligence level. If you agree with that statement (you may not, but at the very least I'd say you should accept it's an opinion held by the general perception: that there is an overall intelligence of people which roughly indicates their ability to operate within civilized society), then by saying blacks are less intelligent, you're not saying their abilities are different, you're saying they're just uncivilized. Savages to the bone, as it were.

What he said was not analagous to that, unless dark skin is put into the diagnostic manuals as a personality disorder. What he said was more akin to "Blondes are naturally dimwitted." Obviously this is offensive. But what if it were true?

If you look at dogs, there are all sorts of breeds, with tremendous differences between them. Some of them are so different (e.g., wolves) that they are considered a distinct species, despite the fact that they are cross-fertile. And if you wanted to say that some breeds were smarter than others, nobody who knows dogs could disagree with you.

But humans aren't like that. Not long ago, we were driven to the brink of extinction, the total human population dropped to around 10,000. As a result of this, we are about as inbred a species as you will ever find, and we have far less diversity than almost any other species; there are only very slight differences between us.

So let's suppose that we adjusted for nutrition, educational opportunities, and everything else, and we found that the average blonde had an IQ which was 3 points lower than the average brunette. Is there anything useful which can be done with that data, or will it only be used to cause/justify social harm? We throw away "all men are created equal" in return for... what? "No blondes need apply"?

Despite the seeming uselessness of doing so, and the inevitable controversy that would ensue, a handful of researchers, funded by pro-eugenics groups, have sought to establish biological and intellectual differences between ethnicities. Almost all of it is questionable science, but for what it's worth, they have concluded that East Asians are the world's brightest people. So, to those who care to buy into the whole thing, I say: here are your intellectual superiors, I hope that you're ready to start taking orders now. If you are really lucky, maybe they will let you reproduce despite your stupidity.

Wikipedia says:....



It was a reward for the lowest cost performance, which is why it speaks of 400 Mflops/$1M for Philip Emeagwali and 500 Mflops/$1M. So the other person beat Philip by 25%! !! ! It ALSO says:



BTW I didn't say he didn't win. I said he didn't REALLY win! If they were ok with providing both prizes to the same team, Philip would have LOST! In any event, he was a CLEAR loser! The payment was supposed to be for the most economical cost.

Philip=$2500/MFLOP
The other team=$2000/MFLOP (2000/2500=80%! So the competitor does it for only 80% as much!)!

In any event, on another compiler, or another computer, it would have had different results. I read it several times and my understanding is the only one that makes sense, and it makes sense on every site. Yours doesn't make sense on any. I don't understand WHY they award for such a silly thing, but I have seen worse.

HECK, we're all cheering for heather! GRANTED TYRA gets an ego boost, and the network gets a show for advertisers. Go figure.

My interest in story has different focus (than majority of other comments)-
(Cross-posted from Gestalt):
Hesitate to get into this, since stuff about Watson is all over the news lately & I'm not trying to stir up acrimony.
This morning I saw feature on CSPAN2's BookTV with him
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Prog ... ayMedia=No
being interviewed as part of his book tour.

He again said (in passing) that Rosalind Franklin had Asperger's, albeit a posthumous amateur dx he conferred on her (I've no opinion on whether or not Franklin had an ASD). It was in context of answering question of why she hadn't discovered DNA's structure first (before J. Watson & F. Crick)-or if she did, she didn't call attention to herself & therefore she lost out on the acclaim & fame the official co-discoverers received. I'd seen a PBS show few years ago that highlighted the oversight of Franklin's contributions-and since hearing the speculative statement about her being ASD I searched for confirmation of that online. Can't be sure either way, though-interesting possibility.

When I saw "Watson" in title of thread (on WP), at first I thought it was about Sherlock Holmes ! Then heard later about (scientist) Watson saying offensive things & realized what reference was to-but I still had nothing (source material in context) to go on. Paid attention when I happened to see the book talk aired on tv (taped a month ago, before he got in trouble & had to resign).

Now I've more idea of how & who he is (had seen him years ago on Charlie Rose show). The noises Watson made when laughing and breathing were loud & distracting-wonder if that's due to an illness, is a mannerism, or a "tic", even ? The way he spoke, his choice of words and sentiments he expressed showed lack of tact (both for good & for ill). Am not trying to dx him, just wonder if I'm only one who considers what traits (which might add up to a diagnosis, maybe Asperger's or a personality disorder ?) does this guy have-but that he's unaware of ? Not trying to denigrate nor to defend, merely mention because it got me thinking in a few different directions, apart from current controversy.