He has very little control over who quotes his work.

That's not the problem.

Especially since he's old and not as directly involved with the promotion and dissemination as when he was younger.

Also not an issue. And he's likely happy with the rise in popularity of his work among those who do not want to look at the approaches of others to genetics.

If you made a groundbreaking scientific discovery and some random blogger you don't like quoted it do you want the masses of people judging you for you or for the blogger?

I don't think it matters in this instance. Who he is does not matter. What happened to his studies is at issue.

Really sounds like you're reaching for excuses here.

No - I am merely responding to fallacies, pointing out ways in which those are fallacies.

You seem motivated by fear.

This doesn't make sense to me. What would I have to fear? If I am happy to argue with people on Saidit, what would scare me about this or the subjects we discuss? (You don't have to answer this, but fear is certainly not the motivation.)

Are you familiar with Bret Weinstein? Bret was the professor at Evergreen college driven out by radical marxist students when they decided, along with most of the staff at Evergreen, to have a, 'day without white people'. Bret is significant because he made the prediction then that Americans don't just have right wing authoritarian threats to deal. The primary threat to america according to Mr. Weinstein is left wing authoritarianism.

I've now looked him up, and I have to admit - after reading several websites - I have no idea what up with him. I'll give it more thought. It's odd that he got himself fired from a relatively good job at a small liberal arts College.

Socks you seem much more focused on right wing authoritarianism.

Yes

Is this because of a fear of whites?

No - certainly not - nor have I ever met anyone who was scared of white people (why would one be?), or who would have addmitted this; and you must appreciate that this is not really an issue.

If so where does this fear come from?

I've never heard of it outside of Saidit. It seems crazy. Are you trying to discredit my approaches by claiming that they are rooted in fear and the fear of white people? If so, you'd have to admit, that's really strange and virtually unknown among normal people who are merely having online debates.

I brought Bret up because even though he correctly predicted militant leftism in the US he also frequently says that at all costs we can't allow white people to 're-racialize'. In Bret's mind it always leads to gas chambers. May I be so bold as to assume that this is the real driving force behind your picking apart of scientists, activists and political groups like the dissident right? Is this why you insist on having a voice on DAR?

Thanks for letting me know about him. Isn't he a remarkably unusual person and example in this case? What he argues about - it seems - is very much on the fringe of social discourse, as is Watson's work - another fringe aspect of his field of work.

It's a scientific term. Does it really surprise you a scientist would use it? Mixed race people refer to themselves as hybrids on occasion. Looks like you're again just searching for something to be offended by.

Yes - referring to hybrid species is a scientific reference. What Watson has helped found is what's known as 'scientific racism' that's similar to the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. What's wrong with this is that it's part pseudo-science and part actual science, while also heavily biased toward one kind of outcome (which is not scientific). The other problem is the assessment behaviour, which is not appropriately considered by these pseudo-science racists, partially because it's impossible to get a realistic assessment of behaviour for large groups, as social psychology and other studies are always incomplete. Moreover, the science does not show significant variances for mixed-ethnicity people - if one looks at Watson's spreadsheets and sources. And if we want to call mixed ethnicity people hybrid species, we would be comparing them to all species, and thus not valuing the differences of humans from other species. Perhaps that's a good idea, but when trying to understand behaviour, human behaviour differs significantly from that of animals.

IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

Watson never said this.

No - though followers of his work are fixated on this issue of IQ differences, as they oversimplify his work for their purposes, while also avoiding genetics research by so many other scholars.

Perhaps I should explain that my responses here are merely meant to offer feedback for your arguments (not about fear, or whites, &c), because you were good enough to respond with some important points, and to clarify that I do not really fall into some of the categories you mention. I am remarkably, boringly, middle of the road on many issues.