http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b26fc36c-1868-46c9-b60f-07a443517238

My objection to the rendering of Watson’s comments is perhaps more subtle, because fools hardly need comment. What is perhaps more insidious is the unnoticed character of a great deal of educated discourse that goes unchecked. For discourse to be fruitful it must have some sense of shared methodology, so that chances for misrepresenting information are largely held in check. As an example (which I haven’t commented on as yet on this blog, but will) there has been a general bashing of “conservatives” in which only the most cartoon versions of conservatism are cited, i.e., disagreeable religious advocates from the Midwest. That any of these folks really get their inspiration from the likes of Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Friedrich Hayek, or Milton Friedman can only be a “liberal” delusion. The same would apply to anyone who would claim that the essence of liberalism is to be found in the musings of George Clooney or Michael Moore. Unfortunately, the fools of life tend to muddy the discourse of other intelligent people who are more intent on shedding light than they are creating smoke. These prefatory remarks set up my objections to the original Watson piece in this blog.

An even cursory review of the linked article show it NOT to be an “interview” at all, despite the fact it was played as such on the media. Being generous, it was simply a compendium of anecdotes, none of which were flattering, and it was obviously meant to be that way. Although it is a commonplace that Mr. Watson is liked, beloved, and admired, whether they were colleagues or not, there not the slightest attempt to really account for this characteristic in the piece. It was clear that Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe was in some way close enough to Mr. Watson to gather the tidbits she did, yet she doesn’t explain her pervasive antipathy, or the motives for not offering the slightest mitigating context for these remarks. Yet it seems plain that every potentially infelicitous remark Mr. Watson has uttered since who knows when was dutifully noted by her, not to clarify anything, but simply for the sake of her personal malice. That this was a hatchet job by someone with an axe to grind is plain. For instance, just suppose she had been fired from a science position in a lab dealing with DNA, and this piece was a result of that incident, what would we say about her comments then? I’m sure this wouldn’t have been the first time that someone used the media to further their own interests. This was also the source of my comments that related my own genetic wariness of journalism. It’s the splash that counted in this case (or any other), and if your subject is Dr. Watson, one will easily get the desired effect should malice be a part of your character. I would have liked to have asked Dr. Watson a few questions that would have highlighted the rank stupidity of his statements, (such as what business did he have in mind when referring to employers of blacks?) but then again I have a funny feeling that had I been there to actually hear these comments, I might have also very likely heard some other things he said that she very deliberately omitted. But who’s to tell from the information provided?

It is grossly misleading to cite this piece as an ‘interview.’ This was no interview; it was a barely disguised laundry list of hearsay, a collection of disparate remarks, without sufficient context cited. This was very much in the typical vogue of ‘got-cha’ of contemporary journalism that needs pizzaz in order to get picked up by other media outlets for public consumption– ‘public information fast-food.’ Haven’t we had our fill of this? Why does it continue? Why are otherwise educated people sucked in by manifestations of this general lunacy proffered by the media that serve their interests, but not the public interest? Now we are entering a political year and this trait will be n full bloom. Isn’t it because they know they can count on ‘the urge to misunderstand’ demonstrated by almost everyone, be they educated or not? It has to stop, but it won’t be in the media—it must stop in the heart of intelligent people.

I’ll comment on Steven Pinker shortly.

If he would have written it rather than spoken off-the-cuff– (a mistake that everyone has made from time to time), may have been avoided– since he would have had time to think of possible consequences of what he was saying, avoiding the faux paux that seemingly ended his career and disgraced him, too bad!

I quite agree with you about the tendency of the media and the public to misunderstand and distort science. That is precisely the source of my complaints about the Pinker essay which doesn’t address this issue.

Regarding your charge that I have somehow misread Watson’s remarks–where is the misreading? You claim that “he went out of his way to avoid the Is/Ought problem”. Where does he exhibit such caution? I find no evidence in the cited article and interview that he is particularly reluctant to draw moral and political conclusions from scientific claims.

You write that “Mr. Watson suggested no remedies himself, he merely pointed out what seemed to him disparities that may need attention for the sake of the futures of those affected. That hardly seems dangerous or insensitive”. But Watson explicitly states that it is obvious to him that, in the workplace, black persons clearly exhibit their inferiority and he alludes to affirmative action as an inappropriate policy. Are you suggesting that this flippant remark based purely on personal observations counts as sound science? Surely you must see that this is insensitive and harmful, and because it is utterly without scientific foundation evidence of racial prejudice.

If you had read my blog post carefully you would have found that I was not disputing the underlying science that suggests genetic, cognitive differences between geographically separated populations, and I did not “peremptorily rule out of hand discussion” of anything. It was Watson’s inappropriate extrapolations from this science that myself and others object to.

Given your spot on remarks about misunderstandings in the media, your question What’s there to fear? can only be interpreted as disingenuous. It is to be feared that a public prone to misunderstanding will take thoughtless remarks by scientists as sound science hence contributing to the climate of fear and mistrust that permeates race relations.

If it is the bane of science that “its work is asked to make sense before hordes without any scientific training or any taste for subtlety” then surely it is the responsibility of scientists to carefully frame their conclusions to prevent these misunderstandings and avoid the influence of personal prejudice in their public pronouncements.

It makes solid logical sense to avoid a group with e.g., low IQ,test results, 70% OOW breeding, and 7 times the crime rate. White_Flight is mainstream “racist” America voting with its common-sense feet, not just one successful scientist “ejaculating prematurely…”.