Jan. 15, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
26:37
4284 "DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race" - Rebutted
A New York laboratory has cut its ties with James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, over “reprehensible” comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected.Double helix trouble Read moreThe Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said it was revoking all titles and honors conferred on Watson, 90, who led the lab for many years.The lab “unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions Dr James D Watson expressed on the subject of ethnicity and genetics”, its president, Bruce Stillman, and chair of the board of trustees, Marilyn Simons, said in a statement.“Dr Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students. The laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.”With Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, the scientist was one of the researchers who discovered the double helix structure of DNA in 1953.In 2007, the lab removed him as chancellor after he told the Sunday Times he was “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”.▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxSource: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/james-watson-scientist-honors-stripped-reprehensible-race-comments
Thank you so much for sending this to my attention.
The continuing horror show of James Watson's end of life scenario is occurring.
This is from The Guardian.
And you got to understand how it is that you're programmed to have a particular response to the data.
So it's right here in the title, DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race.
So it's not Dr. James Watson, which is correct.
It's not recipient of the Nobel Prize.
It's just James Watson, you know, Jimmy Watts, just like someone out of a Supertramp song.
And you see here, it's his views on race.
Now, someone of the preeminent biologists of the last hundred years, responsible for one of the greatest advancements in our understanding of human beings, and because he helped discover the structure of DNA, along with Crick, he might know a little bit more about genetics than Aaron Durkin.
Aaron Durkin!
Sorry, I know that's not an argument, but still.
Erin Durkin!
Yeah, yeah, why don't you just tell us all about genetics and how races differ and all of that, right?
So here we go.
We say New York Laboratory cuts ties with 90-year-old scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA revoking all titles and honors because of his views.
I see this all the time.
People say, oh, Steph, well, according to your philosophy, your perspective, your views, it's like, no.
If it's my views, it's not philosophy.
It's my personal taste then.
It's so repulsive, everything that people say, oh it's all subjective, everything's subjective, everything's relative.
Okay, well then you shouldn't correct anyone else, ever.
Everything's relative, you should never correct anyone else.
No such thing as truth, no such thing as reason, no such thing as objectivity, no such thing as rational evidence.
Okay, then stop correcting anyone, right?
It's like going around yelling at people that this ice cream flavor, not that ice cream flavor, is the right, proper, moral ice cream flavor.
So, maybe he knows a little bit about something-something.
All right.
So here it says, a New York laboratory has cut its ties with James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, over a quote, reprehensible comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected.
Now, Erin Durkin.
I wonder if she's going to look into any data.
Say, gosh, well, he says race and intelligence are connected.
Hmm.
I wonder what they teach in intro to psych.
I don't know if they teach it anymore, but they, they certainly did 20 years ago.
I wonder what they're teaching.
I wonder if there's any data, any facts at all behind the idea that race and intelligence are connected.
No.
No, so she's joining in.
This lynch mob.
Erin Durkin.
Because she hasn't looked up any of the data.
She hasn't said or looked up or understood that no one's been able to overturn the data that Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray put together in 1994's The Bell Curve.
Nobody has been able to overturn what the APA and other groups went behind in terms of supporting all of that data.
Nobody's been able to overturn 100 years of solid testing among various races all over the world.
According to the IQ test, nobody's been able to overturn that data.
Be nice if they had!
That'd be nice if it lived for 500 years, but I'm not planning for that, so... Yeah, she hasn't looked up any... What she says, though, Erin Durkin, says that the comments you see are reprehensible.
Reprehensible.
Now that, of course, is an emotional term.
And the older I get, the more I realize how few people actually end up dismissing stereotypes, acting against stereotypes.
So Erin Durkin has not looked up a single fact, but is using an emotional word to overturn information provided by one of the greatest scientists in the world.
Now, I've not looked up what Erin Durkin says, but I'm pretty sure, given her perspective, that she's not pushing back against the magic modeling of climate change.
Now, if you want to look at climate change versus racial IQ data, racial IQ data is about, and I'm approximating here, 10 trillion times more validated than future projections of what temperature will be in 100 years.
It's all modeled, right?
I programmed environmental modeling when I was a software entrepreneur.
I know a little bit about this.
And if you're looking at scientific data, you really want to look at what you've already collected, not what you project into the future.
Like if you want to know how well a business is doing, the best way to do it is to look at the existing earnings curve rather than what people say it's going to be in the future.
Right?
So we have a hundred years of IQ data, more now.
We have a hundred years of IQ data from all over the world.
And it all says the same thing.
East Asians, IQ is 103, 104, 105, and especially good at spatial reasoning, which is why you have so many Chinese and Japanese engineers and so on, right?
Then you have whites, always normed at about 100, and then you have Hispanics in the high 90s, you have American blacks in the mid 80s, and you have Sub-Saharan blacks in Africa in the low 70s.
And there's more, right?
So the indigenous population of North America is in the mid 80s, and some of the lowest is the Australian Aborigines and Pygmies, but This is, you know, again, I have to put the usual caveats in because people get hysterical over facts and then they say, I can't imagine why there was an Inquisition in the past because they're hysterical over science!
Science!
Facts!
Brain volume differs between the races.
IQs, on average, differ between the races.
And of course there are brilliant blacks and there are very unintelligent East Asians.
You never judge the individual by the group average.
But these are facts.
And they're not facts projected 100 years in the future.
They're facts objectively harvested 100 years in the past.
And no, it's not... Everyone's the same.
Oh, well, it's culturally relative and you have to know what the word regarded means.
No, it's all been dealt with.
Listen, if you ever want to make, this is my business offer to you.
If you ever want to make about a billion dollars, if you want to become a billionaire, all you have to do is create an accurate intelligence test that erases the difference, differences between the races, and accurately predicts their performance in the future, right?
That's all you have to do.
People have, for about a hundred years, been trying to come up with an intelligence test that erases racial differences.
They can't do it.
It's been tried just using symbols.
It's been tried with blacks taking exams under black teachers, so in case they have performance anxiety.
It's been tried, let's give maybe people just to have more intelligence.
They work slower.
They've had as much time as humanly possible.
They've tried it with language, with symbols, with pattern recognition.
They've tried dumbing it down as much as possible.
It doesn't matter.
You can't get rid of this difference on group averages.
You can't.
It's a fact.
It's a fact.
Now, the role of genetics, well, it should be the number one thing that scientists are studying at the moment, right?
Because the West is bringing in people from sub-Saharan Africa and other places with low average IQs, and there's this magic soil idea that, well, you just ship someone from Somalia to Dublin, and boom, they just become exactly like the Irish.
It's not, I mean, come on.
Imagine if you moved to Somalia.
If you were some white person and you moved to Somalia, how long would it take for you to be perfectly integrated into the culture?
It's not that hard, right?
The biologists are getting huge amounts of money from the population at gunpoint, from the state.
So serve the people.
Find out this information.
Drill into the genetics.
Now, about 500 genes have already been discovered related to intelligence, and another 500 or so are in the offing, so yep, people are doing it.
And the Chinese are doing it, because they have, to a large degree, a mono-ethnic culture, and so they can study this stuff without people like Aaron Durkin, Using words like reprehensible!
Inappropriate!
It's the new heretic, right?
Blasphemer!
Reprehensible!
It's emotion.
It's just emotion.
And it's gonna be such a disaster.
All right.
So the lab, and I quote, unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions Dr. James D. Watson expressed on the subject of ethnicity and genetics.
It's President Bruce Stillman and Chair of the Board of Trustees, Marilyn Simons, said in a statement, Dr. Watson's statements are reprehensible, unsupported by the science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students.
The laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.
What is prejudice?
Is prejudice related to the identification of facts?
Is it prejudice to say that East Asians are on average shorter than Danish people?
Is it sexism to say that women are on average less physically strong than men?
How can prejudice be related to the statement of facts?
I don't know what bizarre estrogen whirlpool of radical subjectivism and navigating by the sonar bat idiocy of feelings you'd have to be living in in order to say facts are reprehensible.
Data is reprehensible.
There's no hatred in data.
There's a lot I love about various ethnic communities.
I've learned, I think, I was just going through this the other day in my head, I've learned a lot from just about every ethnicity and every race and every ethnic group that I can think of that I've encountered.
And one day I may go over all of that.
There's no hatred in facts.
So Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, scientist, was one of the researchers who discovered the double helix structure of DNA in 1953.
And just by the by, I think I was in my late teens, Yeah, I went to work up north doing gold panning prospecting and so on, and I just grabbed a massive armful of books.
And one of them was the book that he wrote, I think with Francis Crick, about the discovery of DNA, which was very interesting.
For some reason, I just remember that he likes to play ping pong a lot.
So going back over 10 years, right?
In 2007, the lab removed him as chancellor after he told the Sunday Times he was, and I quote, inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa, end quote.
Because, and I quote, all of our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.
And I'm going to give you that again.
What is false about this statement?
Reprehensible!
What is false?
All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.
And that is undeniably, factually true.
And I don't know what is reprehensible about that.
And of course, you don't give any data, you give startling information with no context so that people recoil because they've been programmed, that any sniff of racism is the same as Satan emerging from your nipple structure in order to take over the brains of the world, right?
He also said that while he wished all the races were equal, people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.
Now, here's the thing, right?
When it comes to, like, the bell curve, at the highest end of the bell curve is where you really will see ethnic differences, right?
So, I mean, if you want to look at language skills, Ashkenazi Jews are very high up there and so on.
Spatial reasoning, you've got a lot of East Asians and so on.
But at the very highest ends of the bell curve, that's where you're really going to see differences between ethnicities and between sexes, right?
So there are almost no women at the very highest points of the IQ curve, almost not.
So Watson, who is he going to be dealing with?
He's not the night manager at Burger King, like to be honest, right?
He's not.
He's not working at a car wash, making sure people show up on time and hose down the cars correctly.
He's working at the highest levels of scientific inquiry.
And according to the bell curve, there's just not going to be a lot of black employees up at that level.
And of course, we have affirmative action, which is pushing people up through the ranks who may not otherwise be there.
And he's telling you this is a reality, right?
So So he said Watson apologized at the time, but in a recent documentary he said his views have not Changed, right?
So his views, no facts, no facts, no data.
His views have not changed.
Not at all, he said in the PBS documentary American Masters Decoding Watson, the New York Times reported.
So then the question is, how do you present the ideas of someone who has not changed his mind?
Do you say, well, here's the data that was presented to him, which had him end up with this Perspective right so here's here's the IQ testing here's all of the differences in in in brain volume and so on and so If the data hasn't changed like he's a scientist, right?
Which means that he has to follow the data if he's gonna be a good scientist and he is of course an excellent scientist So if the data Has not changed Why would he change his perspective?
See, this is the frustration of bullies who didn't win, right?
So he did apologize, which was a shame.
Now, listen, it's fair if you present startling information in a way that can be very easily misconstrued then yes you can say I should have phrased it better or I should have done a better job of bringing the data to bear on this conversation and I have for I mean I've got experts I'll link the interview series below I've talked to 18 world-renowned experts on human intelligence not of course that they would agree with everything I say but I've got a lot of and I've read their books and their articles and
I've got a whole playlist below and I've introduced the data over time and I get it's sensitive and so on.
But why would he change his mind?
This is frustration.
It's like, well, we got him dismissed.
We got him to sell his Nobel Prize.
He got humiliated and then he apologized.
And then there's this real frustration.
It's like, well, it didn't work.
Now he's back saying the same thing, right?
He's an unreformed racist, right?
So he says, I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature.
But I haven't seen any knowledge.
And there's a difference on the average between blacks and whites on IQ tests.
I would say the difference is it's genetic.
Now that is, and you know it's funny too because you basically You have to watch everything you say in this area because if you say something like, it's genetic, then you're making a truth claim that has not been backed up by scientists yet.
If you're saying that the differences in intelligence between races is 100% genetic, you know, and I hate to correct this guy, I assume, but it's complicated, right?
So, anyone who says it's 100% genetic is talking out of their armpit, because that is not proven, and I don't think there's anyone who believes anything is 100%, I mean, height is not 100% genetic, because, you know, problems with food and nutrition and so on, right?
So, environment always counts.
The information that I was given by Dr. Richard Heyer, which surprised me because before I'd heard that the latest data was that IQ was about 80% genetic by middle age or later middle age.
But no, the new data has shown up and with twin studies and so on, they've managed to narrow it down to the fact, the reality, that IQ is about 80% genetic by your late teens.
80% genetic by your late teens.
Now, the good news is that gives us something to work with.
And recognizing that we don't have a magic wand with which to wave over a population and magically change their IQ, what do I do?
Well, I talk about peaceful parenting.
I talk about breastfeeding.
I try to give people easily digestible and actionable philosophy to bring to bear in their lives.
Right?
I mean, this is so important.
Once you recognize the limitations of most people when it comes to a ceiling on intelligence, right?
If you think that someone like, let's say, let's give me an example.
Say you run a factory, right?
And you need a bunch of really, really heavy boxes lifted to the top of a bunch of pallets on a regular basis, right?
And let's say for some reason, You hire a bunch of women, right?
Now women, 40% lower upper body strength and so on.
And if you ask the women to do this big, heavy labor work, they're going to hurt themselves.
They're going to drop stuff.
People are going to get injured.
It's going to be terrible.
I mean, really terrible.
Like people can, uh, they, they could get, um, uh, spinal injuries.
Uh, they could get just horrible, like Their intestines could burst out of their stomach linings.
They'd just be terrible, right?
Drop things on other people.
And so if you say, okay, well, I'm working with women here who've got to lift a lot of heavy stuff.
So what should I do?
What should I do?
Oh, I know.
I will get a forklift and I will give that forklift to the women so that they can lift the stuff on the pallets, train them how to use the forklift.
They'll be perfectly fine at that.
Right?
So when there is a limitation, and listen, some women could go in there tossing it around and all that kind of stuff, but on average, right?
So when you recognize and inherit limitation, and that's genetic, right?
I mean, female strength and male strength is genetic.
Again, there's stuff you can work with, but on average, it's genetic.
So then would you say, okay, I got a genetic limit on the population.
And just even in terms of if you get a bunch of weak men to start doing that, they'll bulk up pretty quickly, but women won't as much, right?
So what you do is you say, I have a ceiling on what these women can achieve.
So what I'm going to do is I'm going to give them machinery that is going to allow them to do the work.
And that's what philosophy is, you understand?
Philosophy.
Like there are smart people who are going to figure out life as a whole in general.
But then there are people who, if you give them good, moral, rational, empirical, philosophical principles, then they're going to do just as good a job as the smart people.
And maybe better.
Maybe better.
So you understand, that's, like, understanding this stuff is one of the central reasons why I do what I do.
I read the bell curve when it came out.
So knowing that, and it's not just about blacks or Hispanics or anything like that, just people!
People!
Half of whites are below IQ 100.
And so I want to help everyone who's not super smart to be able to use philosophy without getting all brain spider webbed up in crap postmodernism from French pedophiles, right?
It's, um, it's like when I first got into computers, I was programming a pet with 2k and it was really, really tough.
And it was hard to use computers, very hard to use computers back in the day.
Now with a cell phone, the user friendliness of the interaction has become so powerful that just about anyone can use a computer, just about anyone, right?
The user interface has become so user friendly, so powerful that Just about anyone can use it.
That's my goal with philosophy, to create a user interface to philosophy that's so accessible that just about everyone can use it.
So the idea that there's hatred in this, no.
If you really hate the women, you'll keep having them try and load up these giant pallets and crush themselves.
That's really hating women.
Get them a forklift, you understand, so they can do the job without harming themselves or others.
All right, so they're revoking Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, revoking Watson's honorary titles, Chancellor Emeritus Oliver R. Graves, Professor Emeritus and Honorary Trustee.
And, you know, I got to tell you, as a guy who survived surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, right?
See that nice little assassin scar on my neck?
As a guy who survived cancer, I take it very personally when a cancer researcher is fired.
A brilliant cancer researcher is fired because your racial hysteria might easily stand between me and my old age.
Between me and not dying from cancer again.
So, yeah.
It really, really pisses me off, this kind of stuff.
You can have your racial hysteria, go take it somewhere else, and don't interfere with stuff that might actually save human lives.
So, the lab said the latest comments effectively reversed the written apology and retraction he made in 2007, could no longer be associated with him.
He said the statements he made in the documentary are completely and utterly incompatible with our mission values and policies, and require the severing of any remaining vestiges of his involvement.
Simon's instillment said, Completely and utterly incompatible with our mission values and policies.
That is quite interesting.
I guess, dudes, Simons and Stillman, what the hell are your mission values and policies if they don't have anything to do with, or are utterly opposed to, the basic dissemination of factual data in psychology?
Of factual, empirical, scientific evidence and data?
What are your mission values and policies?
Well, their mission values and policies is to not be hated, to continue to get government grants, to not be protested or firebombed or something like that.
We all know, right?
And this is the funny thing.
And it really is very tragic when you think about it.
If you don't understand and accept ethnic IQ differences, you end up hating white people.
You just do.
You do.
Because you say, well, the only difference between Europe and Africa is that Europeans stole, and slavery, and pillaging, and colonialism, and imperialism, and grabbing all the resources, and ah!
Right?
So you end up fomenting this massive amount of hatred.
And listen, I see this every single day.
If you check out my video, The Truth About South Africa, just scroll down through the comments from the blacks.
It is a never ending torrent of anti-white racial hatred.
The whites stole the land from the blacks in South Africa.
We're stealing it back.
It's karma.
What goes around comes around.
Now you cry and you did it to us.
And right now it's largely empty.
South Africa, the whites came and they built up the land and they bought it or they They homesteaded it or whatever.
I mean, there were original indigenous populations, the Kauai and the San, but they're almost all dead now, largely killed off by the blacks.
Anyway, so you can see all of this racial hatred if you don't accept these ethnic IQ differences.
But here's the thing, even the way that this plays out in public fully accords with all of this.
So if you look at The difference is just between blacks and whites in terms of how people perceive it.
It's really, really important to understand.
Whites will accept slanderous lies in most people's minds more easily than blacks will accept the truth about IQ differences.
So you have this conflict, right?
You have blacks not doing as well and you have whites doing better.
Now you have East Asians doing better, right?
So this supremacist stuff is like, I just look at the data.
If I was some sort of supremacist, I'd choose every metric which had whites at the top.
And whites are not at the top of the IQ ladder.
But you have two groups, right?
So why is it that we make up Racist nonsense like white privilege rather than tell the truth about ethnic IQ differences.
Why?
Because everybody knows this.
Why?
Because we're scared of violence, right?
Because at least, I mean, if you look in America, you look all over the world, blacks commit a lot of violent crimes, right?
A couple of percentage points of young black males in America commit close to 50% of the homicides in America.
So Even in the way that we say, well, we'd rather talk about white privilege than black IQ, we are fully accepting this data because whites won't riot.
Whites right now, I don't actually believe the blacks will either, but we just have to start telling the truth.
I have a respect enough for all groups to tell them the truth.
So this is very sad.
It's very tragic, but of course it's not the first time that a scientist with data has fallen prey to mob hysteria.
