But race doesn’t confer that. Having dark skin that holds up well in the sun does. Blacks aren’t required to have sunburn resistance skin and whites aren’t required to have the kind that fries.
No. But then again, we have yet to universally agree on what intelligence really is and how to measure it. If he has empirical evidence that blacks lack the genes that allow a certain level of performance on tests that purport to measure intelligence, it would not be racist to state this.
But does he have this evidence, or he is just reciting the same ole tripe spouted by pseudo-scientific racial ideologues since the days of slavery? His remarks generate controversy precisely because they are nothing new nor groundbreaking. And yet they haven’t been proven.
Saying dark skin is sunburn resistant is not a value statement because it can be measured objectively. Have a dark person sit out in the sun for 8 straight hours. Let a pale person do the same. Who has fewer burns at the end of the experiment? The dark person.
A value-loaded statement is subjective. Who is more attractive in old age: dark or pale people? You can’t measure this empirically because attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Similarily, who is of inferior intelligence: blacks or whites? Being of inferior intelligence is a negative state of being in a society that prizes smart, but not only that, you can’t measure intelligence without first establishing what intelligence is. The ability to do complex math? The ability to learn things fast? Strong language skills? Creativity? Problem-solving? Are Mozart-like musical prodigies who are bad at math less intelligent than mathematical wizards who are tone deaf and couldn’t play a musical instrument at more than a basic level no matter how much practicing?
However, if your test statement simply indicates that the guy is dumb, then it interferes with the question of whether he is racist. (He could be both racist and dumb, or his dumbness may simply lead him to make unsupported statements based on faulty deductions from inadequate evidence.)
Watson’s comments about sub-par black employees in the linked article in the OP and his comments, elsewhere, echoing Rushton’s “high sex drive/low intelligence” hypotheses certainly indicate some race-based flakiness, but a subtext of this thread has been the whole concept of measuring “races” and to the extent that such efforts are worthless, they do not reflect well on anyone (real or hypothetical) that embraces them.
However, “on average” means that it is not true of any imagined races, only of some (as yet undefined) group that expresses a median or mode segment within each purported “race.”
I don’t see why it really matters. If Professor Smith believes that Race A is superior in quality X to Race B, then he is a racist (by the definition proposed earlier.) This is true whether the belief is a result of faulty deductions or good deductions.
Or do you believe that “truth” is a defense to racism?
I don’t understand this. Could you give me an illustration?
It would depend on what is the purpose of deciding whether somebody is “racist.”
For example, in the context of employment, I would say that an organization is “racist” if, as a matter of policy, it gives an advantage or disadvantage to job applicants of a particular race.
In the context of science, I would first ask you why is it necessary to decide whether a scientist is “racist” or not?
Okay, so why don’t you do that, instead of picking semantic nits over the definition of the word “racist?” Do you think he’s right? What evidence do you have to support that? If you don’t think he’s right (or you don’t have any evidence to support his position), do you think it’s reasonable to ask, “Why would he say stuff like that, when there’s no evidence that he’s correct?” How would you answer that question?
If Watson proposed that blacks are more likely to have a genetic deficiency that prevents them from scoring high on certain tests, that would be as racist as him saying blacks are more likely to have the gene for Sickle Cell Anemia and thus more likely to suffer from the particular health effects that arises from that trait. Which is to say, not racist. Not because of his idea is based on truth, but because innate inferiority/superiority with regard to some subjective quality is not being communicated with this statement.
HOWEVER, in the absence of evidence, and when viewing his comments in the larger context of pseudo-scientific racial theory, its reasonable to view him with suspicion. That’s why his comments ping so many people’s racism radars.
So if he had added the qualifier “as measured by IQ tests” when he mentioned intelligence, then his statement is not racist?
For example, somebody could make the statement that “Average intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is lower among American blacks than American whites.”
You have. Twice. If scientists don’t need special criteria for being called racist, why do you keep asking about scientists when asked to define the word, “racist”?
But, looking at your earlier posts in this thread, what if the statement about intelligence is true (and supportable)? Does the mere fact that it can also be construed as a value judgement make it racist? I science only able to investigate, report, and opine is a way that we find comfortable?
You seem to be of the camp that there is no such thing as race. Is that correct? If so, isn’t it a waste of time discussing this with you? That’s not intended to be snarky. It’s just that due to that fundamental belief you cannot be swayed from the sub-issue of whether one race differs from another. Right?