Color Coded?
DNA, RACE, & LIBERAL HYPOCRISY
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews – June 3, 2008 – As far as the FITS gals are concerned, the term “PC” refers to a computer, and we wouldn’t believe you if you told us otherwise.
Of course, we only wish that we were that clueless, because then we wouldn’t have to grapple with the vague, amorphous concept of political correctness.
Honestly, we’re confused by PC: Once we think we’ve gotten a tenuous grasp on it, it squirms away again. The thing is, PC doesn’t really mean anything. It’s merely an understudy of sorts; it acts as a body-double, standing in until something sexier comes along. Today, that something is “DNA.”
With another double helix debate raging, science is all of a sudden presenting a problem for PC. Normally liberals are science’s most fervent fans, constantly touting the brilliance of theses, experiments and data – that is, until science makes a revelation that is contrary to some other liberal obsession. Today, that other liberal obsession is “racism.”
Dr. James Watson, scientist extraordinaire and the man who discovered DNA, has released some of his recent laboratory findings. Watson has found what he believes to be a link between genetics and race.
Of course, rabid liberals have immediately assumed the outcry posture, imputing racism to Watson’s data without even surveying his assertions. Watson is being railroaded, and for what reason? For discovering a possible scientific correlation?
It’s weird that liberals would get so uptight about data, considering that correlation and causation are generally their M.O.
After all, aren’t these the same people who screech incessantly about the human contribution to planetary doom (backed up by lots of research)? Or the need for stricter regulation of everything from spinach to crayons (backed up by lots of research)? Or the dire social consequences of corporate tax breaks (backed up by lots of research)?
How then do liberals reconcile this demonstrated predilection with their current fury at Watson’s findings?
Well, the same way that they usually wiggle their way out of a sticky situation: by picking up the race card, by now worn and wrinkled, and smugly shoving it in everyone’s faces.
Watson’s assertions, while certainly fascinating on a scientific level, aren’t particularly noteworthy to most of us.
He makes no wild political, social, or economic claims based on his findings; he has merely reported the data. Instead of questioning his methodology, his opponents are attacking him personally, slapping him with the “racist” label to shut him up. Often this works, as most people are hysterically frightened of being forced to wear such a label.
Not Watson. Ever the intellectual, he has remained steadfast, retaining his composure and his academic air.
Remarkably, he hasn’t shied away from questions, nor has he shot back with pointed responses. To explain his research, he has even interviewed with TheRoot.com – a tough crowd for him, but he didn’t waver. He presented his data, he explained his position, and he answered the editor’s pregnant questions.
What Watson has theorized shouldn’t be surprising.
After all, we know that “White Men Can’t Jump,” can’t dance, can’t belt, and are um … inferiorly endowed. We also know that genes play a part in strengths and shortcomings. So, then, why is it an egregious logical leap to wonder if the white man’s inability to jump is somehow linked to his genes, especially when research seems to bear that out?
Next thing you know, it’s going to be racist to claim that genetics influences skin color …
Comments
By Reader on June 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Yes — that will be their next thing! It’s like one of Dilbert’s days when he said something or another was like ‘wallpapering in fog.’
Reasoning with liberals is a lot like that, too.
By baker on June 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
With this post and the one on Atlantic Beach, Mande Wilkes seems a bit preoccupied with matters of race.
Will, is a new direction for FITS?
To the point of her post, I’m not Mande even understands the facts of what she’s talking about. She keeps referring to “data” and “findings” and so forth. If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Watson expressed an opinion in a news article. I don’t think that he “reported findings.” I don’t think his statements were specifically “backed up by lots of research.” Again, I believe the deal was that Watson was talking theory, opinion.
Why do “liberals” get worked up about the voicing of this sort of opinion, even coming from a scientist? There may be a bunch of reasons, including PCish tendencies.
But we know the racists have used claims about racial differences in intelligence for bad purposes. Slavery, Jim Crow, ongoing efforts from wacko organizations. One wonders if Mande has any understanding of this aspect of our nation’s history. Maybe someone will come along one day with “lots of research” to conclusively prove something about racial differences. Until then, it’s understandably that people are wary of such claims and concerned about their possible impact.
By CL on June 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Take a gander at the column by the interviewer calling Watson a “racialist.” He assumes that the statements made by Watson are on their face racist without ever even discusses the elephant in the room – does the data suggest innate differences or not?
We all know that it does, but no one wants to talk about it. A reasoned debate can take place over whether the data suggests: (1) differences in population groups controlled by genetics, (2) differences in population groups controlled by culture and environment, or (3) bad data produced by even worse measuring techniques. I admit that I don’t know the answer, and there are few people informed enough (Dr. Watson being one of them) to have an intelligent opinion on the subject.
By Rob W. on June 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
You are entirely wrong about this, and you should retract it. Watson doesn’t have any data or methodology backing up his statements, and you sure didn’t link to any.
Watson’s comments would have been controversial even if they were supported by the evidence, but they’re not. Watson didn’t release any data from his lab findings; instead, he used the “black people are good at basketball, so maybe it’s genetic” argument. He hasn’t done any studies on the subject, so his “assertions” are simply that; observations that any jerk off the street could have made. It’s worth noting that the literature on the subject (from the 70’s) doesn’t find what Watson thinks it should.
For the record, I don’t think he’s racist (or not any more than 95% of people in South Carolina, at least). But in his unique position as a patron saint of scientists, he’s got to be more careful about what he says and how he says it, particularly if he’s making a (incorrect) scientific point without any evidence. Mande, I agree with you on a lot of the posts you’ve done, but if you’re bitching and griping about only paying attention to the evidence, you should take your own advice.
By duh on June 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
The prospect of unpacking the ignorance of one simple sentence from this post is daunting. Mande writes: “Dr. James Watson, scientist extraordinaire and the man who discovered DNA, has released some of his recent laboratory findings.”
1. Watson was one of a team of scientists who figured out that DNA had a double helix structure. His Nobel Prize was shared with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/ ) and most observers believe would have also been shared with Rosalind Franklin had she still been alive (Nobel awards only go to living people). Learn more here:
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/gene/DNAdiscovery.htm
2. Watson’s speculations about race ARE NOT BASED ON ANY OF HIS LABORATORY WORK.
3. Maybe you could link to some of the “data” and “findings” you reference, so we could evaluate the accuracy of your assertions?
By duh on June 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Mande writes: “He makes no wild political, social, or economic claims based on his findings; he has merely reported the data.”
Here is an unedited trandscript of the interview Mande links to:
http://www.theroot.com/id/46694/
Could you highlight the referenced “data” or “laboratory findings” please?
By FWFIV on June 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
After reading the article I had a bunch of points to make about the sloppy nature of the article by Ms. Wilkes. But, earlier posts have done a better job of refuting her claims.
Based on her website’s tag line, Ms. Wilkes seems to be enamored of Ann Coulter and this is an attempt to parrot her writing style.
As a law school gradutate she should know the above article is poorly researched and based on anecdotal arguments with no examples given. Then again she did go to CSOL-
sorry too easy.
By Not only that on June 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
No kidding. I followed all the links and couldn’t find any data. Maybe you could let us know what studies your resident expert evaluated in her wisdom to conclude that the data support what Watson said.
By baker on June 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It looks like Mande’s taking it on the chin here….showing a somewhat disturbing preoccupation with race and apparently missing simple facts of the case.
Again, Will, is this a new direction for FITSNews? Half-baked stuff to further divide people on the issue of race?
Oh, and it appears that CL didn’t even take the time to read and comprehend Dr. Gates’ explanation on the difference (at least how he sees a difference) between a “racist” and a “racialist.”
By Mande on June 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Look, all we’re saying is that if genetics influences height-and we all agree that it does-can it not also influence other traits? If race is determined by genetics, then is genetics not inextricably entwined with race?
We don’t know, and we don’t claim to. The bottom line is that there has been rigorous academic investigation on that point, and it’s being buried and muffled because of PC mania.
While there are tons of studies buttressing the PC position, there is likewise no shortage of research supporting Watson’s assertions.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/studien/bericht-43536.html
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr5Qmj-OUCM
An inconvenient truth? Maybe. Totally false? Maybe. Either way, scientific investigation of the matter shouldn’t be stifled.
By CL on June 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
#5,
You wanted a link to data. See below for the “Inconvenient Truth” about IQ scores between black and white populations. It is sad that it has to be considered an act of courage for Dr. Watson to discuss the implications of these facts.
I would also add that whites are not the highest in IQ scores. Is it racist to point out that Asian populations outscore white populations on IQ tests?
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm
By CL on June 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
#9,
I certainly read Dr. Gates’ “explanation”, but comprehension is difficult when one is spouting jibberish. Gates starts off claiming he is not accusing Watson of being a racist, but then lets his guard down and writes that Watson was quoted as “making racist comments about black people by suggesting there are inherent, unalterable biological differences in intelligence between black people and everyone else.”
He never even addresses the issue of whether there is a statistical disparity, which is an established fact.* Not once. He just assumes the statements are racist on their face. Talk about relativism – apparently the truth is racist.
* Again, the disparity is a statistical fact. It is certainly open to interpretation what this statistical deviation means.
By Barnaby Jones on June 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Watson needs to research why black folks like shiny metallic wheel rims so much. I have always wondered about that.
By Kumbaya on June 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Me too, Jones — but there is a word for it: magpie syndrome [urban dictionary].
BTW, why do you libs always try to concoct some ulterior motive into things? Can’t we just contemplate, cultivate, and celebrate our differences? In peace?
Otherwise you all are just going to give your strained heads a more complex, genetically-predestined headache.
By baker on June 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Mande’s rebuttal doesn’t help matters much.
Her published, headlined post on the front page of FITSNews failed to provide any data or research and mischaracterized the statements of Dr. Watson. He wasn’t citing “laboratory findings” or whatever.
And, secondly — probably more importantly — she launched into a diatribe about liberal hypocrisy, the “race card,” “political correctness,” and so on, when the deal is that critics of assertions like the one made by Dr. Watson are not merely jumping to the racism claim. There are lots of reasons beyond charges of racism to challenge the notion that there are intelligence differences between blacks, whites, Asians, and whoever else. Here are several that are voiced:
-How distinct are races, from a genetic standpoint? How “scientific” is our understanding of race?
-Exactly what do IQ tests measure?
-Psychological theory suggests that there are 7 types of intelligences…are they all thoroughly understood and measured by IQ tests?
-Are prenatal and postnatal environmental differences taken into account? In other words, what if black children in America typically have less prenatal nourishment as well as less physical and intellectual nourishment during pre-school years — do we know how much this may account for IQ differences?
Her “race card” charge really isn’t very well-founded. And, yet, considering our nation’s racist past — as well as those groups who continue to push racist agendas and ideologies — it’s perfectly understandable that people recoil at this claim of racial superiority/inferiority based on race.
Bottom line is that Mande is thoroughly off-base. I would hope Will Folks is thoroughly embarrassed to feature such content on his website.
By Barnaby Jones on June 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Baker, you are a moron. Give it up.
By Mande on June 4th, 2008 at 2:55 am
So gravely serious, some of you. It’s getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes – and prove me wrong. Demonstrate that my “inferiorly endowed” assertion is wrong, and I’ll hereinafter defer to the PC crowd on all matters.
By Reader on June 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
MandeGirl, the PC crowd will twist itself tighter than those DNA squiggles to be BC. Bizarrely Correct.
By baker on June 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Wow — some pretty tough talk, Barnaby.
And Mande seemed to take all this pretty seriously — the “race card,” the “lab findings,” etc. — until she was thoroughly called out here.
By Barnaby Jones on June 4th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Baker, go read The Bell Curve and then show me ONE credible refutation of the facts and findings asserted therein.
By baker on June 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
B-J — My understanding is that The Bell Curve has credible supporters and credible critics. But even the authors said this: “The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved.”
In any case, I never attacked scientists in this discussion. I did, however, point out that, in contrast to Mande’s arguments, there are legitimate criticisms of this race/IQ theory that go well beyond “playing the race card.”
By Barnaby Jones on June 4th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Baker,
Wow, for someone who drones on incessantly about the subject, you are surprisingly ignorant regarding the major research done in the field. By credible critics I assume you you mean liberal nincompoops who are too lazy or stupid to actually read the book. Maybe you should read it instead of spouting out false liberal talking points designed to politize scientific research and promote ill-founded social policy making. In fact, there is almost no disagreement among legitimate scientists on the subject and the only discussion is about how much is genetic and how much is environmental. Numerous studies have shown the environmental factors alone cannot account for a substantial portion of the IQ differential. You can shuck and jive all you want, but facts are facts.
Instead of attacking Mandy, whose argument IS factually correct although not politically correct, maybe you should do a little independent study in this area of science instead of parroting what you hear on Air America Radio.
By baker on June 4th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Lots of name-calling, Barnaby….”moron,” “stupid,” “lazy,” even “nincompoop” (most impressive).
Whatever. I think I made my points clearly enough, and I’ll let it go at that.
If Will Folks is happy that Mande’s commentary on race is bringing additional commentary like that of Barnaby Jones, then congratulations to you all.
By Barnaby Jones on June 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I didn’t realize you were the content police for this website! Thank heavens for good citizens such as yourself. It is also nice to see you have such confidence in your rather weak reasoning.
Also, if your are insinuating that I am some sort of crazed racist, then you just confirmed Mande’s original point in her post! Ha! moron…