its about that one story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071019/ts_nm/watson_dc;_ylt=ArkzUS2tEVe1nF6J7o0uuZsPLBIF
2007-10-26 07:59:46 · 9 answers · asked by radiohead-reckoner 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I read the article and think that the overview should be taken.
People (any race or color) that have not developed at the
same rate will show differences in their intelligence as it
is a cumulative growth based on daily information and
educational imput. I certainly do not think that people are
inferior to others because of their genetics. In very poor
countries such as those in Africa, they haven't the resources
to develop very much intellectually. However, there are
certainly different types of intellegence. I'm sure that
99% of Americans wouldn't know how to treat a very
sick child without a doctor...as some bush and hill people
do...or build an enery efficient house out of mud...or
build a small windmill to harvest electricity. If you look at
the millions of brilliant African Americans we have in this
country...it makes this man's statements totally untrue.
Given the proper developmenal atmosphere...learning
is learning. I think he's probably somewhat of a product
of his generation..displaying a certain bias when it
comes to this. Pretty unbelievable that he would put
that out there.
2007-10-26 08:16:33 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If by "inferior" he was referring to intellectual ability, the statement is obviously not true. After all, he has clearly overlooked two glaring exceptions on the supposedly superior "Anglo" side: George Bush and Mr. Spencer himself.
He's just living proof that education offers no protection against ignorance.
2007-10-26 09:25:14 · answer #2 · answered by JMH 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anglos are decended from non-Anglos, who migrated north into Europe from Africa after the glaciers and ice sheets melted. Science shows this happened 3 times and each time they were driven back by new waves of cold and ice, over a period of some thousands of years. "Try try again" does not sound inferior to me, and Spencer's epistemology is terribly flawed, leading to a skewed metaphysics and an unjust ethics.
2007-10-27 01:26:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supremacy or inferiority cannot be truly quantified because to limit definition to certain aspects like aptitude or intelligence quotient, physical capabilities, psychological and emotional capacities, nullifies any result. Quantifying claims of supremacy should encompass everything and no one can truly quantify every human trait as humans are infinitely reinventing themselves. Besides, environment plays an important factor in the development of the human being as much as heredity or genetics does. Human beings reactions to different stimuli are heavily dependent on their culture and how they were raised. Culture is a non-quantifiable entity and so is nurture. Watson himself said that his remarks about racial supremacy has no scientific basis.
2007-10-26 08:15:25 · answer #4 · answered by reg 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Define Anglo/non-Anglo.
2007-10-26 08:05:04 · answer #5 · answered by OE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, no one has the right to quantify the boundaries of superiority or inferiority. Spencer was
being pompus, overbearing, and down right wrong.
2007-10-26 08:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by Joy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he just proved his own inferiority.
2007-10-26 08:14:39 · answer #7 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Please!!!! don't have any kids!!!! and call your mama and thank her for raising an ignorant child....only closed minded people are inferior!!!! remind you of anybody?????
2007-10-26 08:06:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do YOU think?
2007-10-26 12:46:27 · answer #9 · answered by James Bond 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋