Redneck,
That's a great article on James Watson. It's amazing how ignorant people are when someone suggests something different. It seems we haven't changed from the days of the Salem witch hunts.
As a medical practitioner we were always taught at Uni there was an inextricable link between human form and human function. Function determined form and form determined function. It is thus incredibily ignorant to see the many thousands of differences between various races brought about by evolutionary pressures and then assume that intelligence for some strange reason should be the one characteristic that is constant across the races.
I would'nt guess as to who is the more or less intelligent, but I would stake my life on there being a difference, brought about by evolution.
These people who criticize Watson's view are always willing to accept any idea that some groups may have certain superior characteristics provided we are talking about the "underdogs" having the superiority ( blacks being better at sports). I have never seen them jump up claiming discrimination for such things.
It seems some people just can't accept what science tells us. And for scientists to come out and criticise Watson is just shocking.

Knopfler, part of the problem is that "intelligence" isn't a single factor.
Personally, I have an above-average ability at abstract problem solving (making me a good computer programmer), but a limited ability at applying my reasoning skills to many practical tasks, or at analysing how other people think, meaning I would be a lousy tradesman or business/sales executive. What IQ tests seem to show is that certain self-identified races, including "blacks", rank less well on average in the abstract problem-solving sphere. But one could hardly deny their ability to make a living in the harsh environment of the African jungles and savannahs for hundreds of thousands of years. Further, Native Americans are rated with similar levels of abstract problem-solving skills, yet were capable of running sophisticated civilisations (the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans) while "white" Europe floundered about in the dark ages. On top of that, the average non-normalized IQ score now for blacks is about what it was for whites 50 years ago (due to the Flynn effect). Yet 50 years ago, whites were no less incapable of running modern prosperous nations.

The further difficulty is that in the modern world, dominated by strong abstract-problem-solvers (whites - although note Asians are generally better still), races whose natural abilities tend to be in other fields often get short shrift, and judged to be collectively "less intelligent". Worse still, because of this mindset, judgments are made about black individuals that assume that because of their skin-colour, they must be necessarily be not as smart as those white guys next to them. But there are plenty of blacks with good abstract-problem solving skills, as well as plenty of whites with poor ones. There is no excuse for not judging each individual on his or her particular abilities and/or behaviour, other than laziness.

wizofaus,

I don't know if you have fully read my last post. The point I am making is that, in my opinion, there will be a difference in intelligence between different races. How you measures that intelligence is another problem. Who is the more intelligent? I don't know.
I stated above that there are thousands of differences between different races that we accept, but when it comes to politically sensitive areas we close down debate and just say well there is no difference.
Humans are animals that have evolved over millions of years to different environments, thus they will be different.
There will be much overlap between intelligence of members of different races, however if we could measure average intelligence of different races then they would be different.
Wizofaus, would you agree with the statement that different races will have different levels of intelligence, without saying who is more intelligent?

Ozzie, I quite categorically accepted in my previous post that self-identified "blacks" tend to do poorer than whites on abstract reasoning tests, and whites tend to do poorer than Asians. By some people's view of "intelligence" this would make whites, on average, less intelligent than Asians, and blacks less so again.
But personally, as I said above, I don't see "intelligence" as a single factor, nor do I believe that "intelligence" is a trait that deserves special treatment over other abilities.
Ultimately, what is important is whether people of all races can successfully co-operate to form a stable, prosperous civilisation.
The other day I witnessed several hundred kids leaving our local high school en masse. My rough analysis was about 35% anglo, 35% "other caucasian", 20% Chinese/SE-Asian, 7% Indian and 3% "black" (probably Sudanese) - roughly in line with the demographics for my neighbourhood. There was virtually no racial segregation - they were all getting along just fine, chatting and laughing and all the stuff that kids do together. The inescapable conclusion I came to is that the intolerance and segregation and violence that happens between adults of different ethnic backgrounds is almost entirely a cultural phenomenon, that is conditioned into us by our parents, by society, by government policies - whether intentionally or otherwise. But each generation that conditioning seems to be getting weaker and weaker. I doubt racism and intolerance will ever be eliminated completely (as I suspect we *do* have a genetic tendency to distrust other groups, particularly if they are visually distinct), but it really has no place in the 21st century.

Hallelujah! Thanks to Divergence for responding sensibly to my question regarding acceptable immigration levels, and what might constitute "mass immigration". As it happens, I largely concur with you that an appropriate target might be something like

"stabilisation at 20 million in conjunction with measures to limit waste, inefficiency and conspicuous consumption... This means mass migration is what is significantly more than zero net, say over 50,000 a year (until natural increase goes negative), since half out population growth is coming from that source."

However, when you say "...our politicians really are setting up the conditions for a perfect storm if we end up with serious ethnic fault lines in conjunction with rapidly falling living standards", I think you're missing the point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube with respect to Australia's ethnic and cultural diversity, and restricting specifically 'non-White' immigration isn't going to change that. Any communal conflict in Australia's population can only be exacerbated by the expression and enactment of xenophobic and racist sentiments such as we see from some in this thread.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvai/et al, interesting that you would characterise me as "insincere" and a "troll", for exposing your dishonesty - of which I've reluctantly informed the moderators.

I've tried to find any questions that you or your sock puppets have asked of me that I haven't answered, and the only one that I can find that I hadn't specifically addressed was the one about the SEQ population. Of course I don't agree that increasing the SEQ population by 1 million is sustainable. Perhaps the questions were asked by another sock puppet that I haven't yet identified, and you're a little confused as to which one asked what?

CJ Morgan wrote, "I've tried to find any questions that you ... have asked of me ..."

Here are six, not five questions.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96166

1. How many of those do you suppose would not jump at the opportunity to move to an industrialised western nation?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96361

2. ... would you care to quantify your "support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds"?

3. Do you know that John Howard initially dropped annual immigration figures to 68,000 ...?

4. Now do you happen to believe that level of immigration into a country running out of water is ecologically sustainable?

5. Do you happen to believe that the Queensland Government's plan to cram another 1.1 million into South East Queensland by 2026 is ecologically sustainable?

6. If you don't, then what do you intend to do about it?

None had been answered, when you posed your question. three have only just now been answered in response to Divergence's most recent post and three (1, 3 an 6) still remain unanswered.

As I have shown, you apply one standard to others and a different standard to yourself.

CJM wrote "interesting that you would characterise me as 'insincere' and a 'troll', for exposing your dishonesty ..."

You haven't exposed any dishonesty except your own.

As I have repeatedly said, there has always been a link to my own web page at the bottom of each post, and those posts which were made on my behalf by others were done so openly. I am not aware where this is in breach of any rules. Where I have resorted to this I have only done so sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

Now, you are entitled to suspect that some OLO accounts may not be bona fide, but allegations do not constitute proof.

CJM continued "... of which I've reluctantly informed the moderators."

... as you are entitled to, and which is vastly preferable to your further disruption of this forum.

In any case, the main reason I regard you as a troll was your misrepresentation of my arguments, which you have done yet again.