racist?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/18/science.race/index.html

Watson of Watson and Crick fame. Not of "Elementary, Watson"

Here's the problem with this, Watson seems to assume that the study of intelligence is a hard science like his work with DNA. I don't think that his principle remark is intended to be racist, as it is factually accurate that in general blacks score lower on IQ tests for example. This however is not necessarily indicative of lower intelligence. IQ tests test many things. I'm not totally sure that intelligence is one of them. It's a marker and indication that intelligent processes are going on during the test perhaps. But as a measure of those, it's inherently flawed because it focuses on specific (and possible) definitions of intelligence mixed with the ability of the person to take tests. I see the differences in score as a premise FOR debate, and bringing them up should not be seen as 'going beyond the limits of acceptable debate'. We should wonder why our empirical studies are showing a gap. Is there something wrong with the study (as in, are we asking the right questions to discern intelligence), the culture or the test (does it have a cultural bias)?

As for the second remark, that people who work with blacks would have a different opinion of them, that would be a prejudicial remark worthy of some scorn. Again, it's possible that this is an accurate perception in some cases. But then again, it's possible that someone who works with impoverished backwater white people (rednecks) would have a different opinion too. I haven't found any cause to complain on the nature of race. Either someone is good at their job or not. I don't care what pigment they have.