Real Talk

"One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that 'equal powers of reason' were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

"James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London."

"The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when 'testing' suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."


"Dr Watson stated at the weekend that he is '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 went on to argue that although one hopes that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, has equal powers of reason 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true'."



Peace and blessings,

The following excerpts were taken from the first two articles below. I heard about

James Watson's

(link to bio: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-bio.html) comments a few weeks ago. In terms of his claim that there may be differences between the intellect of Africans and that of Europeans, I don't see a problem with that statement per se. Given the different experiences of people who grew up in different environments (e.g. Africans, Asians, Indians, Europeans, etc...), I think it is plausible for there to be some differences in intellect to a certain extent. Much of our cognitive development and how we approach and solve problems in influenced by the environment we grow up in and how we interact with that environment. Therefore, insofar as different groups of people lived in different environments, I would expect to see some differences in how their cognitions and their approach to solving problems, namely because certain problems are more or less salient in certain environments, and therefore the type of environment we grow up in will determine the nature and extent of our interaction with that environment. The problem I have is with his statement that Africans are less intelligent that Europeans, because to utter such as thing suggests that certain peoples' intellect is "better" than others. All men were created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and He shows no partiality (2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19). Furthermore, He instructs us to not show partiality towards our fellow brothers and sisters (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17). Despite these instructions, however, there appears to be something in our sinful nature that makes it easy for us to not only make distinctions between one another, but to associate value judgments based on these distinctions. Now it's obvious that God created a wide variety of difference cultures and ethnicities, and we should celebrate these differences as reflecting God's beauty and brilliance. The problem comes when we attach more value to certain groups or characteristics than others, because then we are showing partiality.

Another issue I have with Watson's claim is that his so-called evidence is suspect. For a world renowned molecular biologist to claim in 2007 that Africans are not as intelligent as Europeans, and to base this claim on IQ tests in the 1990s that showed some differences between racial groups, is problematic. For one, many have argued that IQ tests are flawed and biased. Also, I don't see how he can have the audacity to suggest that Africans are not as intellegent as Europeans, given that many humanity's intellectual contributions to the understanding of the world (e.g. science, philosophy, mathematics) either originated or was epitomized and "borrowed" from the Egyptians, who are North Africans. Lastly, no one can dispute the fact that life began in Africa, which would explain why Africa is home of the first university in the world, the

University of Timbuktu.

In the book Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children (Gloria Ladson-Billings, 1997), the author recalls a teacher who told her students in her math class about the African Orgins of Algebra, and how the first definitive evidence of the use of Algebra were found in the writings of Ahmes, an Egyptian mathmetician who lived around 1700 B. C.

In closing, I just pray that we get to a point where we can celebrate difference as one of God's may gifts to human kind, and to view these differences not as our limited, flawed nature wants us to view them, but how God our Creator views them. Given that we did not create any aspect of our being (e.g. brain), we are in no position say one group's intellect is better than another's. To start passing value judgments on people's intellect is to suggest that we know everything there is to know about intellect, and history clearly shows us otherwise, lol. What do you think? What are your thoughts on Watson's comments? Do you think that groups of people can generally differ in their intellect? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...

1)

theory on race and intelligence

2)

The basis for Watson's assertion

3)

Watson responds to critics

4)

Watson's institute does not cosign on his theory

Labels: African, DNA, Egypt, European, God, ideologies, intelligence, James Watson, science

Peace and blessings,



Pic courtesy of

Gustave Dore (1875-1950)

While reading the Old Testament and learning about the experiences of the Children of Israel (COI) in the book of Exodus, I noticed a phenomenon taking place that I could not completely understand. Although I understand that the COI had experienced severe hardships (hundreds of years of slavery and oppression), God, using Moses and Aaron, delivered the COI from Egypt and into the land He promised their ancestors. In addition, God performed a multitude of miracles during their slavery and during their journey into the promised land. Despite this, there are countless times when the COI rebelled against the commandments of God. Moreover, everytime the COI complained during their journey, they tried to justify those cmplaints by claiming that they would have been better off in the arms of their oppressors. As someone who is interested in social psychology and how individuals act within groups, one question remained in my head: Given that God met every need that the COI had, what made them (as a group) consistently rebel against God, and prefer being slaves?

One incident in particular that intrigued me was when the COI started to worship a golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain speaking to God and receiving the instructions for moral conduct that the COI would have to adhere to. What is more interesting is that the COI got Aaron, whom God would ordain as a priest, to build the calf. As an individual, who, liek Moses was called by God to aid in the liberation of the COI, I wonder what was going through his mind when the COI asked him to build them a golden calf. In social psychology, there is a wealth of literature out there that demonstrates the influence a group can have on individuals (even to where an individual intentionally gives the wrong answer although he knows it is wrong!). Also, I know it could have been nerve-wrecking to have Moses on the mountain for 40 days, and the COI unaware of his whereabouts. Despite these circumstances, the COI were able to witness what many people hope to witness, which was concrete miracles performed by God on their behalf. It is almost as if when things don't go our way in the present, it is easy to forget how far God brought us from our past. I am not pointing the finger at the COI, nor am I suggesting that I don't rebel against God despite the things he has done for me, because there are definately times when I do. The point I am trying to make is that there is something to be said for the influence of the "group," or the influence of a perceived "group."

For instance, I wonder what it would have been like for an Israelite who dissented and initially refused to worship a golden calf. We only read about COI being disobedient as a group, but I wonder if there were some individuals who withstood the group pressure or consensus and remained true to God. The lesson I took from the COI is that we must never forget where God has brought us from, especially in the midst of group pressure to conform and go against God.

A real life example related to this idea of group influence is the

Kitty Genovese murder in 1964

Pic courtesy of

the Genovese family and artists Alexandra and Rebecca Chipkin

The controversy surrounding the murder was that based on reports, it appeared that there were mutliple witnesses of the attack, yet minimal intervention (only one person apparently called the police, and this may or may not have been the same person who yelled something at the attacker). Supreised at the minimal intervention on behalf of the supposed witnesses, many psychologists began to study the factors that would discourage multiple witnesses of an attack to intervene in some capacity. Eventually the terms "bystander effect" and "diffusion of responsibility" were developed and suggested that when a large group of witnesses or bystanders see an attack, each individual member is less likely intervene, because he or she assumes that one of the other bystanders or witnesses wil intervene. Even though this is not an absolute and we may all be aware of examples of where witnesses intervened, this phenomenon should spark discussion nonetheless.

Although the initial report published in the New York Times in 1964 claimed that 38 witnessed the attack,

later examinations of the incident

contend that the amount of witness who either saw or heard any portion of the attack was no where hear 38, but instead around twelve. Despite the accuracy of the number of witnesses, this incident raises an important question: What are some of the forces that cause us to be complacent or indifferent? What are some of the forces that contribute to group compliance? To what extent does awareness imply obligation?

What do you think? Weigh in on the issue and speekonit...

Labels: Aaron, Children of Israel, Egypt, God, Moses, Old Testament, oppressed, slaves, social psychology