Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo

Comments

1. Commendable programme that is surely one of the most sensitive issues, how is anyone supposed to get to grips with all that is needed to say! What did me was the comment near to the end of the programme, "most societies are Racist", and I agree with that comment. As regards IQ tests, I think they are a farce to determine intelligence, I was a toolmaker in the past, not with quallifacations but as time served, I saw many instances where the "qualified" Toolmakers were making their tools the "right" way, according to their teachings, which in most cases was slower and complicated, when shown a quicker way, using common sense, by time served people or improvers, all they could say was "thats not the way to do things" even though the methods used were efective, I think intelligence should be based around the common sense that people use in every day life, this approach certainly shows where Intelligence is being used. Just for the record we ALL came from Africa, so we ALL have the same abilities. 61 year old white male in the UK.

   Posted by John on 01/02/2010 23:20:14

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. As Feyman used to say IQ tests only show the ability to pass IQ tests......the programme says that these days it is thought more as a measure of cognitive intelligence and not intelligence itself....Feynman had an IQ of 124 quite good but far from being what you expect from a mind that was behind complex theories and considered one of the most brilliant mind of the 20th century

   Posted by ANS on 01/02/2010 02:39:26

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. As a molecular biologist by profession i can confidently say that "race" is an illusion; after all all of us evolved in paralell. Just that skin colour(melanin content), nose shape, skull shape etc. are adaptations to fit our environment. Ofcourse, there will be genes discovered linked to intelligence but it would only be as different as any other genetic difference would be (remember the comment about genetic difference between welsh people in the program?...we are all 99.99% the same genetically wherever we come from the globe!) also the IQ test is conveniently designed...what if instead of asking you to arrange the yellow/blacks cubes like shown in the IQ test in the program, you were asked to assemble an african bushman tool-like thing...wont a bushman then have an higher IQ than you? IQ tests should not be called 'intelligent' tests anymore...

   Posted by RR on 11/01/2010 06:01:29

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. To the people who didn't understand the conclusion: It was never really about race, it was about poverty, family values, ambition and social exclusion. The racial element is only a consequence of the past. Race has nothing to do with mental capacity and potential. Everyone has potential, not everyone has the ambition to succeed. When I look at African schools I see how keen they are to work hard and do well. The number of Doctors and Lawyers now being produced in these countries is something to be proud of. My partner and I are roughly equal in earnings now, however she has come further than me because I was upper middle class and she was from upper working class. She has a Masters degree and speaks two languages where as I have one Bachelors degree. Both of us have worked hard to get where we are, but I believe she has felt driven to work harder and recognises the tough childhood she had.

   Posted by Bob H on 27/11/2009 13:51:01

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. Valerio says: Now, not to sound too naughty, did you know that apparently some scientits proved that people get their intelligence mostly from their mothers? Yes, you know what I am getting at... By the way, I am going to buy Richard's Lynn book straight away. Well, I honestly have no idea where President Obama 'gets his intelligence from’ I do know that his black Kenyan father went to Harvard though. I seem to recall the programme informing the audience that People of African descent who had a significant amount of European genes were usually less, not more, intelligent than those with predominantly African genes. An awful lot frustrated me about this programme. Apart from the fact that it was barely scientific in its claims, it reached no definite conclusion(s). I’m aware that science is not always conclusive, but I found that it ..just%u2026 petered out at the end. I was thoroughly perplexed at to why members of the African Diaspora were yet again all clumped together into a neat little box. We were informed that people of East Asian origin were at the top of the intelligence hierarchy, but we weren’t informed of the academic achievements of West Africans worldwide. 27, 000 Nigerians currently practice medicine in the US, (not sure how many in the UK0. Education is sacrosanct in many Nigerian and Ghanaian households. In fact it sometimes borders on the obsessive. The vast majority of black graduates in the UK and the US are of West African origin. There are 5 doctors, 6 lawyers, 4 pharmacists and 2 engineers in my Nigerian family. Such levels of achievement are not unusual in that part of the world. However, being lumped together with other groups, purely on the basis of skin colour, makes absolutely no sense to me at all. There were some other curious omissions, in my opinion. Surely, with all the cultural, economic and social advantages laid open to Caucasians, they and not the East Asians would be at the very top of the intelligence lottery tree? Why are white boys currently underachieving in school, when we are meant to believe, they are the most privileged amongst us?

   Posted by Occam's Razor on 09/11/2009 18:52:18

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. your programme was very interesting but it said nothing about the fact that over the centuries black africa never invented anything amd never evolved a society which rivaled societies in europe ,china ,arabia , japan in terms of literature, architecture ,or advances in knowledge ( eg abbasd regime in baghdad ). I have lived in africa and visited many countries there including 2 visits to mogadishu and have always been puzzled by the lack of africa-produced advances in anything

   Posted by n.w.ruston on 08/11/2009 17:25:34

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. How can you measure intelligence scientifically when the first and golden rule of science tests is broken - IT'S NOT a FAIR TEST! Unless you test two groups of people who have had EXACTLY the same experiences in life, same life chances, same cultural influences, same environmental factor, same cultural attitudes, same opportunities etc etc you will never get close to obtaining 'valid' results let alone a fool proof one. If you think that being white makes you intellectually superior you clearly are stupid.

   Posted by Kal on 05/11/2009 21:39:06

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. When the Acient Cushites and the Ancient Egyptians of Africa were creating civilisations(these were black people)using mathmatics,astonomy,astrology,chemistry,physics,medicine,etc,etc,etc..white people were still living in the dark ages,in mud huts..so here we have black people excelling in many fields,while europeans had to wait for the Greeks to aquire their learning from Africa,pass their learning to the Romans, and the Romans to then start civilising and educating white Europe.When the Romans lost their power,all of Europe fell back into the Dark Ages, While Africans were still flourishing on the continent. The re-civilising of Europe came through the black Moors of Africa conquering Spain,Sicily and Southern Italy...this is the information I was hoping Rajee Omar was going to highlight. It is most definatley about the quality of education you have access to,the social envirionment you live within,and the support centres you recieve...if all intelligence is determined by genes, then it was the Ancient Greeks who said that the blacks are highly intelligent!!!

   Posted by jazz on 05/11/2009 20:16:26

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. To Aldith Mesquitta: I can understand your anger, but there is no need for you to be so upset if you followed the programme closely. The programme, if aynthing, has only embarrassed those white racists by refuting their racist myth. If you watch the programme again, follow closely those white and black scientists who dismissed the racist idea of "race and intelligence" to be a complete farce - and understand and interpret Rageh Omaar's conclusion, then you should be smiling. All black people who identified the true outcome of this documentry should have a big smile on their face. The only losers are the delusional racists. I love this documentary and I am black. Peace.

   Posted by ChocolateBar on 05/11/2009 02:29:20

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
10. Though I applaude C4 for bringing such controversial topics to TV, I watched this programme with anger and dismay. The sudo-intellectuals who supposedly had proven findings to suggest that Africans (black people)are of low IQ were, in my opinion racist and actually looked like they would fit in very well with the KKK. The journalist ended the programme with a seemingly 'positive end' with saying there was change and that the most powerful man in the world now is President Barack Obama - a black man. The question I would like to ask is they spoke of black people, white/europeon people and Asian people in their IQ test - where do mixed race people fit in. Barack Obama is seen as black, but the point remains that he is half white - having a white mother, so what is the IQ of a mixed race person? Or is it that white with black is unaccountable? Is it that the 'intellectuals' still feel that with even a white parent, that the black IQ gene still remains lower than everyone else in the world? This programme was hard to watch, especially as a very intelligent journalist was asking the questions and these white superior 'intellectual' men did not care how upsetting their so-called findings would hurt not just him, but every other African person in the world. This confirms to me that we will NEVER find peace amongst the races, that there will always be superiority amongst white people and basically black people with always have to fight for justice just because of their skin colour. It is saddening that many future black children are going to be borne into this society, which shows so much intolerance and love of mankind.

    Posted by Aldith Mesquitta on 02/11/2009 19:01:20

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
11. A very interesting programme but one that skirted over some of the key scientific data and reached, in my view, partly erroneous conclusions as a result. In contrast to what the programme said, there is a clear relationship betweem brain size and intelligence that has been demonstrated in a number of recent studies (see Rushton & Ankney's 2009 paper in the International Journal of Neuroscience for a review). The largely heritable nature of intelligence is also well-demonstrated in many studies (see for example the review by Rushton and Jensen in Medical Hypotheses, 2008). The presenter would have been better served by closely reading the research rather than listening to left-wingers with an anti-race axe to grind such as Stephen Rose. Science is based on fact, not moralistic fantasy.

    Posted by Dave Smith on 02/11/2009 15:26:52

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
12. What I find fascinating about this topic is what is left unsaid and unchallenged. It seems that academic intelligence is lauded above everything else. There are many different types of intelligences - sporting, emotional, artistic, intuitive for eg - why put this one above the other? How many innovators did well at school? Why are maths and sciences lauded above the so called "softer" subjects? There's a very obvious bias there in terms of what we consider to be intelligent. Who determines what is deemed intelligent? It seems to be those in cultural, economic and social power ie white, middle and upper middle class males, because this argument is about intelligence being seen as "masculine" and well as eurocentric. And what are the attitudes that inform scientific research? What is the mindset that wants to investigate race and intelligence, what are they trying to prove? It seems that someone forms a hypothesis and then does the research to prove it. Seek and ye shall find. Another thing that we don't consider is our survival wiring and mechanism. Our wiring determines that we view other human beings who look different as suspicious. We spend time and energy researching differences when in fact we are much more similar than different . But for our survival it helps for us to position others as inferior and different - to assert our dominant position. Scratch the surface and you will see that the mindset behind much of the research is based on our survival wiring - promoting our differences so that we can assert our superiority over another and therefore dominion over them.

    Posted by Sophie Johnson-White on 01/11/2009 22:10:30

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
13. first of all i have to say thanks to chanel 4 for putting or releasing this program this really tells about the reality that is on the or what white people believe from black communities that white people are more genuios than black people and if i say some thing about the scientist man who believes that whites are genuios than blacks that is i think a man's bad idea about blacks and he had on his mine but he was thinking how to display it alltogether it is a modern racism against blacks, let me tell you that this happened to me here in uk galsgow. and that is it.

    Posted by waliid on 31/10/2009 15:15:51

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
14. those bigoted racists are enemies of humanity. i still get amazed at how low and vermin like people can get. thank you rageh omar for an insightful uplifting programme that can asssist in the gradual deconstruction of these devilish myths that continue to discourage and destroy lives. take care and God bless you

    Posted by jeremiah on 31/10/2009 01:33:22

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
15. There is no such thing as a gap between intelligence and race,per say. To measure intelligence on the basis of race is just an unfair racial attack to subject others to inferiority. Environmental factors, life styles, and upbringing are the major players here. I consider my self to be a fairly intelligent white man, yet I have made to look quite ordinary, at times, (academic wise) by many black people over the years. Why is it so hard for us to accept we all belong to one race, the HUMAN RACE, and that we are equally capable of being highly successful or not based on our individual ability, life style and upbringing? Even if I wanted to believe the science behind all this I cannot. At the end of the day, nothing is conclusive as is clear watching the programme. The scientists can only say "this is what we THINK". I think it would be interesting if a group of Black, White, and Asain scientists work together on this project, to bring about a more credible and balance view to those who are inclined to believe these inconclusive evidence.

    Posted by Beingreal on 30/10/2009 19:29:27

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
16. Some people should know that the "science" behind the "statistics" involves the legacy of slavery and colonialism. Omaar's conclusion rightly alluded to the sentiment that a multi-racial society dominated by white and white rule does not cater to the needs and upliftment of black people, a result of black under -achievers and needs to change. It has nothing to do with black growing up in white culture. In fact, there is evidence to show that the brighest black students in non multi-racial environment such as the caribbean and parts of Africa are doing much better than the brighest black students in multi-racial environment such as Britain and America. This pathetic approach to "IQ" and "Intelligence" is an attempt to derail the truth and fuel the silly and unfounded belief of "white supermacy"

    Posted by ChocolateBar on 30/10/2009 17:42:37

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
17. The experimental data is not alarming, whats disturbing is how that information is being used. This argument only serves the interests of racists.

    Posted by ZuluBOI on 30/10/2009 16:55:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
18. I have to say the doc started well but went fast downhill. Rageh's mannerisms made him seem far too close to the subject matter and that may be why the second half was a distortion of the truth and went against the whole fearless exploration premise of the programme. He covered very briefly the twin studies but what he didn't mention was the fact that many of the twins from diverse background were placed within that proposed middle class environment with better nurturing, nutrition and support and their test scores always were much closer (when not identical) to their twin than to their peers in the specific environment that they were in. And Steve Jones for God's sake - he used to deny race even existed, until he couldn't deny it and had to cut his sails to fit the wind. I guess we should be grateful that Lewontin now seems beyond the pale.

    Posted by Stephen Green on 30/10/2009 11:21:50

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
19. I think that there is inevitably going to be differences in distribution of intelligence levels in different cultural groups. Intelligence, like many other attributes, is inherited. Each culture places different emphasis on the importance of intelligence in the attractiveness of a potential mate. Other factors are at play. For example the migration of peoples for different reasons. This can work both ways. One migration may be a case of those with the means leaving using their own resources. This by its very nature is a filter against lower intelligent individuals. Other migrations, for example the movement of slaves from Africa to North America and the Caribbean, may have had the reverse effect. Slaves would have been selected mainly for physical strength and then subsequently subject to the extreme conditions in their crossing. The survival of the fittest, physically and mentally. The important thing about all this is that all humans deserve equal rights whatever their levels of intelligence and should not be descriminated against in any way. Finally, if you think that you are more intelligent than another person purely based on their race, then you need to read up on statistical distributions.

    Posted by David on 30/10/2009 00:13:04

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
20. This show did not refute Rushton or Lynn. They didn't even get a right of reply. Jelte Wicherts (2004) explained how the Flynn effect is qualitatively different to the difference in group averages. There are no signs that other groups are closing the gaps on East Asians or Ashkenazi Jews. Furthermore, the comment that there is little variation between groups ignores recent papers from Williamson, Voight, Hawks & Lahn showing recent increases in genetic changes. Particularly, over the past 10,000 years with the advent of agriculture. University of Chicago Geneticist Lahn has even written an article along with Lanny Ebenstein in the recent edition of Nature suggesting we need to learn to "Celebrate Human Genetic Diversity". Genes tend to show up in different frequencies across populations. Until the genes associated with cognitive function are identified these questions won't be resolved.

    Posted by Chen017 on 29/10/2009 23:46:35

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
21. Interesting program. The study that found that Asians are more clever than whites and then blacks to follow were quite interesting. Yes, I can see if black people are uplifted they can get to our level of intelligence. However why is whites not as clever as Asians then? What is holding us back from being just as clever as Asians? Or are Asians just more clever than us? If so, then we're back at square one. Whites are just more clever than blacks. Anyway, I do not have a problem that a race is more clever than I am.

    Posted by Henri Le Riche on 29/10/2009 23:42:24

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
22. People should know that the "science" behind the "statistics" involves the legacy of slavery and colonialism, which unfortunately has a significant adverse effect on the educational and economic development within the black community. For hundred of years black people have to struggle with the mental scars, and socio-economic setbacks while repairing the damages, is in itself a barrier which white people do not have to deal with. This is even moreso within a multi-racial society dominated by white and white rule. The result? Black under-achievers. So this pathetic idea about IQ and intelligence is just an attempt to further derail the truth and fuel this silly and unfounded belief of "white supermacy". This is the sentiment to which Omaar alluded to in is conclusion, not about blacks growing up in a white culture, but that this multi-racial community does not cater to the needs and upliftment of black people, and needs to change. In fact, there is evidence that the brighest black students in none multi-racial environment such as the caribbean and parts of Africa are doing much better than the brighest black students in Britain and America, for example.

    Posted by ChocolateBar on 29/10/2009 23:36:42

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
23. Thanks for this program. Racism has become some subtil nowadays that we cannot always see what is the difference between bullying someone or being simply and plainy racist. I have been shocked to hear that teacher woman saying that was surprised to see pink skin under an injured colored skinned little girl and find it normal to voice it out loud. I hope she does look back to this program and hear the absurdity of her comment.

    Posted by resolution on 29/10/2009 23:08:48

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
24. I am totally disgusted by this programme. Where are the ethics of this study? Wwhere is the protection from harm? Which ethical committe has this study been approved by and were the participants informed of their right to withdraw? This woman makes un unfounded, assumption that all white people are racist! I am disgusted by this discramination, ironically around in effort to irradiacte discrimination of people purely on the basis that their skin is not white. This woman disgusts me, and I am horrified that she has been allowed to continue this blatant unethical dispaly of behaviour!

    Posted by Siobhan on 29/10/2009 22:35:09

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
25. People should ask themselves why they are not aware of the science behind the statistics. Is ignorance of racial and cultural differences now more important than free speech in UK? Omaar's conclusion seems to be that if black kids grew up in a white/asian culture then they would have the same IQ. Even if this ridiculous statement was true it is in itself a racial slur on black society.

    Posted by Ben Jardine on 29/10/2009 19:25:05

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
26. C4, thank you for having the courage to commission this programme, and the others in the series. This topic was a truly massive one to try to tackle in just 1hr, but I think Rageh Omaar and the team did a commendable job; the resulting programme should (hopefully, will) prove to be a discussion-starter. I find it appalling that some in the scientific community are willing to twist data and research to such abhorrent, distasteful ends - thank you for exposing them, and for showing a logical, non-sensationalised refutation of them. Thank you, too, for starting to talk about the fallacy of IQ tests ... perhaps worthy of a programme in themselves.

    Posted by Marion on 29/10/2009 17:17:46

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
27. Having seen the program on Race and Intelligence, I was appalled by the comments of certain so called scientists who claim that race has a direct link to a person’s intelligence. I have very little respect for their knowledge or personal understanding of the subject. What I gathered from the TV program is that these scientists knowledge is based on pure statistics and not the actual environment some people are born into. All they commented on was that far-eastern people have a higher level of intelligence compared to others. What they do not realise is that they would not have been scientists, if not for the invention of the numerals which originated in India over many hundreds of years ago. If any of these scientists have won Nobel prizes for their work, they are not worth the paper it is written on or should ever be recognised by the world community as leading scientists. I am glad to have seen the program to pass this very critical observation on science, which is still struggling to understand what we are today and our future on this planet. The IQ measurements, as they are done today, carried out on may people only measures the time of response of an individual to a question and not the intellect of that person. Some people are by nature slow to react and others are faster. This aspect is directly related to certain biological aspects of a person which has a direct link to the environment they are born into and has no relation to their intelligence.

    Posted by Donald on 29/10/2009 15:28:17

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
28. Race And Intelligence: What's your point questioning Omaar's IQ based on geometry? I am quite certain he answered all the questions, relating to journalism and world issues, correctly. And if we all should get really picayune as you have, then what do you think the IQ score would be of the millions of white westerners who do not have basic numeracy skills, let alone geometry? Have you watched programmes such as university challenge, master mind, and weakest link? Do they all get every question thrown at them correct? Even if you were the greatest mathematician on earth I am sure I can ask you mathematical questions, some of which you would definately get wrong. What would you think of a pilot's IQ who answered a medical question incorrectly? What would you think of a doctor's IQ who answered an aviation question incorrectly? Why do you think a pilot is not suitable to perform cosmetic surgeries or a surgeon to fly a plane? And how significant is IQ score in this scenario? What are you really implying?

    Posted by ChocolateBar on 29/10/2009 14:49:49

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
29. I think the documentary was well intentioned but it is too big a topic to cover in an hour. Of course environment and who devises the tests make a difference but I am still unclear about what 1 genetically defines a race 2 defines intelligence %u2013 verbal spatial musical mathematical etc 3 can objectively measure all types of intelligence Two snippets from other documentaries spring to mind which demonstrate how contextual the measurement of intelligence can be when measure across races or cultures a.. Recently arrived Caribbean children being assessed as educationally subnormal in the 1950s because they drew houses without chimneys %u2013 which of course they did not have in their homeland b.. Studies of spatial relocation tests on suburban European and Western Desert Aboriginal children showed that the Aboriginal children had amazing and superior abilities irrespective of where they were raised. The Aboriginal community were reluctant to draw attention to these differences even though it could have had a beneficial effect on teaching methodologies because of the whole race and intelligence issue. I have no spatial intelligence. Is that genetic or because as a girl I was not encouraged to play with meccano, engines or construction toys?

    Posted by Laura on 29/10/2009 12:54:54

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
30. I was very dissapointed by this programme. I expected one about a taboo to break it down and get to the objective facts. What we actually saw was a demonstration of how someone (Ragi) caught up in the taboo himself could not break out of it. He was open about how deeply emotionally involved in the question he felt. But rather than see this as a problem for his objectivity, he revelled in it. For example, I was shocked when he seemed to completely misunderstand the nature of a statistical average difference, and actually said that if there really was an average lower IQ for Africans, he felt this as a personal slight on him and his family. Why? A statistical average says nothing about any individual. Rather than bleeding in front of us, he should have been explaining just that point. Personally, I'm pretty sure the faulty science in the concept of IQ correlating with race is the non-scientific nature of the concept of race itself. This point was indeed strongly made by some of those appearing. But on the way the programe misrepresented IQ testing, and its history, presumably under the influence of the very taboo the programme was supposed to be studying.

    Posted by Dysacre on 29/10/2009 12:47:58

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
31. A rubbish program! To see Rageh dealing so emotional with this issue, I already had a feeling he wasn't going to deal with it so objectively. And it showed by giving a lot of air-time to left-wing liberals and being dismissive to the proponents of IQ-tests. He didn't mentioned the researches which showed that adopted children from different backgrounds had results consistent with the other IQ-tests, e.g. asian kids adopted into white families scored on average higher than adopted white kids, which had higher average scores than adopted black kids into white families. If there was a cultural bias and a different ethic to working diligently, then explain these results to me. Just as in sports a good environment (nutrition, coaches, etc.) will improve your performance, it's also generally accepted that genetic factors play an important role in this (look at the amount of black sports ppl). As much as your IQ improves with better environment, why were these (most of them respectable) scientists dismissed as pseudo-scientists and sometimes even being linked to racist interest groups? By focussing very much on environmental factors, I thought Rageh made us overlook other crucial evidence. He didn't mention the fact that out of the poor 3rd world immigrants who arrive here, on average (and I mean AVERAGE) the kids from non-black families scored better on SATs and A-levels than those of black families. And he didn't mention what sort of subjects the successfull black kids from the bronx were planning to study. From what I've seen here, a high percentage of black school-leavers tend to study "soft" subjects, like media, management or business (anything without too much maths or science skills involved). The high percentage of asian kids in Berkeley (and low percentage involved in sports) looks to me so obvious. If being good in sports partly due to hereditary factors is accepted without too much fuss, why is it suddenly racist (the program uses "taboo" instead) when IQ is partly hereditary despite all the overwhelming evidence? You can call me a generalist, but even a novice in behavioural studies can see that in everyday life on average asian (Indian, Chinese, etc) kids have more academic success and a lower crime-rate and participation-rate in sports, whereas that for the afro-carribean community the rates are the other way round. For whites the rates seem to be in between. I don’t find it racist to state that certain groups are better than other in certain things, it doesn’t make someone a better person just because he/she is better in football or science. If any, it would give a better understanding how to tackle the underachievement in certain areas of the different groups and so create a more healthy society. If we want to deal with the problems we've got now honestly, we just can't sweep these facts under the carpet, just like I felt Rageh still did in the end.

    Posted by Not Fooled on 29/10/2009 12:45:56

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
32. Having studied the philosophy of intelligence, there is a well-known argument that IQ tests only test whether you are good at answering IQ tests. Nothing more. Defining 'intelligence' is a highly complex area, some philosophers have determined up to 7 different types of intelligence (sporting, artistic, mathmatic etc) - so why confuse being good at IQ tests with being 'intelligent'? Only if we come up with a yard stick that truly defines IQ, can we possibly answer this question. Until then, lets presume that everyone is unique and everyone has the ability to succeed or fail in what they choose. To succeed is to be motivated, you can be good at anything if you try hard enough.

    Posted by CHARKOTTE on 29/10/2009 11:25:53

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
33. I was most struck by having concluded that culture was the driving factor in "Intelligence" - Middle class cutlure being supportive with their children in the education system. Rageh called for support for the Black community. Rageh didn't call for support for ALL families, regardless of race, who don't follow use middle class cultural views. It made me laugh,,, refusal both to apply the same logic to all races and of course denial of the consequences. Of course, Rageh and Channel 4 aren't racist for producing a program calling for support for the Black community - no mention of Asian, Indian, White etc. Very poor.

    Posted by Jack on 29/10/2009 11:06:45

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
34. No-one is arguing that factors such as culture, education, and environmental circumstances (even racism) can and do affect academic and vocational success. The question is whether different races (or sexes if you wish to avoid the race issue) have marginally differing genetic intelligence. Let's assume that a standard testing for intelligence (not academic success) is agreed upon by scientists around the globe. If we follow Mr Omaar's clearly apparent beliefs to their logical conclusion, the standard testing will conclude that every race has (on average) exactly equal intelligence. I for one find this unlikely.

    Posted by James on 28/10/2009 22:42:43

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
35. There is clear evidence to support the role genetics plays in human ability. What is also clear is that the environmental potential (training) often outweighs the influence of genetic variation. In the cases of elite athletes the additional genetic advantage assits the training e.g. caucasian swimmers, northern european power athletes, east african long distance runers and west african ancestry short distance runners. However, in case where training has not reached the elite level, then the distribution of excellence is not loaded to genetic ancestry. Using the athletics analogy we can look to women's sport, where athletic success is still somewhat proportionate to fiscal opportunity. For cognition we are also not training at the elite levels. Therefore elite potential is not determined by genetic code. The trends may be supported - stereotypes of asian students and arithmetic excellence persist, but genes influencing behaviours of work ethic may play a far more important role. I am on the bell curve, but I believe that my environment has played a far more important role in my successes and failures than my SNPs.

    Posted by Rajinder on 28/10/2009 22:42:07

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
36. SO WHAT IS OMAAR'S IQ SCORE? What has he got to hide?? During the test, as soon he realized that he was out of his depth, he was quick to denounce and question the validity of the test, desperately making excuses for not being particularly good at geometry. Pathetic.

    Posted by Race and Intelligence on 28/10/2009 21:59:21

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
37. I thought the episode was weak, designed to court controversy rather than give a balanced view. It is readily accepted that various ethnic groups have genetic markers that define them in their environment. We readily accept that people of African origin excel disproportionately in the sports arenas of the western world. From my own childhood experiences, I believe this can easily attribute to to academic underachievement. In a mainly all white school, the lower C stream was mainly consisting of the physically enhanced with more popping hormones than a sherbet dip. Anyone who goes through adolescence will easily relate to the ability to concentrate and the ability to study effectively, throw in physical growth that set you apart from others and it's a whole lot to contend without good parental guidance. Would anyone doubt the ability of a native American Indian to study effectively under the influence of alcohol? Take a westerner of African origin and subject them to the western diet and as seen in the sports arenas, they dominate. All those hormones flying around in their formative years is a distraction many of us would find difficult to overcome. The episode did look at the effect of parental guidance on influencing the academic progress of their children, which I believe can even master all those hormones with discipline. The only problem being that the more physically advanced have that natural ability to fight that discipline. In the UK one of the main factors for failings of children of West Indian descent was the break down in the family unit over generations. Throw in a physical capacity far greater than your peers and it is perfectly understandable this leads away from academic achievement. I don't believe this is permanent because the latest generations of families of West Indian origin, are guiding their children academically to overcome these issues. Even families where parents were not academically successful have shown the ability to develop their children with discipline. It is something that comes naturally to families headed by academic parents, thus keeping a division which is hard to break. Is this genetic, I certainly believe so!

    Posted by Barry on 28/10/2009 14:30:29

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
38. From the Statistical data collected regarding IQ and race, scientists formed the hypothesis regarding race and intelligence. The scientist was being unbiased and hardly racist when he said that the hypothesis was there to be challenged with findings from further studies. The programme did not show any scientific evidence too support this apart from anecdotal. As a side note, a recent study reported in the Daily Telegraph found that different dog breeds had different levels of intelligence, I quote: "They have also compiled a list of the most intelligent and least intelligent breeds using information from obedience classes. Border collies and retrievers were rated among the most intelligent while hounds and terriers were the least bright." Is this similar to the human race / intelligence debate, I'll leave it open to debate and be interested to hear other peoples views.

    Posted by John on 28/10/2009 13:55:13

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
39. Just a thought looking at the direction of some of the comments here; firstly, we know that brain size counts - contrary to popular belief there are no 'redundant' brain cells; it all gets used; different bits at different times. It stands to reason therefore that having less of that in certain areas is going to be a problem; because the essential parts of the brain - for the cruder more primitive functions are just going to be as big as is required to do the job, the outer parts of the brain are the key, and those are what DO differ between races. Secondly, all of the underlying concerns on this subject focus on the idea that if intelligence differences of a genetic nature are acknowledged, then this will somehow lead to catastrophic injustices. The problem with that thinking is that, firstly, the ongoing disruption that our society is suffering isn't resolved by burying your head in the sand, secondly, ignoring differences could lead to wrong-headed policies that through not addressing the causes exacerbate the problem, for example, pseudo-equalizing everything in the way Rageh suggests, thirdly, just suppressing stuff is likely to lead to a bigger, and badder reaction than facing things to start with; you could end up sabotaging your own well-meaning interests. I think most important of all though, is to bear in mind that moral stances on these issues evolve; humans have certain core morality because it helped them survive - they don't just think these things for a laugh; for example, killing your offspring or people within your own group is generally considered a bad thing, because your own survival and therefore your own genes are jeopardizd. However, if new information comes to light then that doesn't make morality a non-revisable issue. It all depends on the outcome for survival; if you think about it, morality for any other reason would seem a little silly, and indeed would have no background to explain its existence; no-one believes in sellotaping oranges to transit vans because it would just be bizarre - no practical outcome. Morality to do with treatment of each other does have an outcome, though. There is no default 'good' morality though - it has to be tried and tested to get that status, as you'd expect. As such, we may see that this kind of scrapping over the whole race issue will simply be another stage of evolution, and just as our morals have changed as the need has changed (look at the u-turn on homosexuality that has occurred in the last 40 years), this may happen with issues relating to race. We may even unknowingly be going through some kind of test exercise at this very period of history - don't forget; in a hundred years time people might not understand what all the fuss was about, and a new moral standard will have replaced the old.

    Posted by Matt on 28/10/2009 13:38:34

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
40. I have to confess that I haven't read every single comment left. I have, however, read a significant amount and find myself overwhelmed at the number of people who believe that this documentary 'failed'. Bias is not the point in question here as far as I can see. All documentaries and all journalism possess bias. This of course does not omit the neccesity for an ethic of integrity and objectivity, as far as one can be exercised by an indivdual presenting data in an organised fashion, which Rageh Omaar did with aplomb. Firstly, I find there to be a staggering amount of opinions coming from a closed and anemically informed standpoint, stuck as they are in the locking groove of a small body of scientific 'evidence'. To do so is to fall into the trap that they say Omaar has: of valorizing one view over another. It is virtually impossible to be unaffected by your environment, the culture you grow up in and the ideologies and attitudes that abound within them. How on earth do we think the Holocaust happened? How on earth were 'heathens' burnt at the stake? How on earth was Galileo imprisoned for showing the world his theory that the earth was not the centre of the universe? The question that is asked is how useful these categories are. I find this adherence to such a narrow scientific perspective deeply ironic as a result. We are what we make of ourselves and our world. And, yes, we live in confusing times, where when the lines blur and logic and reason are challenged at their core we are sent into a tailspin of knee-jerk reactions and half-baked straw grasping. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely these times of uncertainty are a window of opportunity in which we could place less emphasis on left and right wing, on black and white, on all these 'opposites' and draw ourselves together to fight the common enemy of ignorance that divides us all in the first place? Genetic differences are there for us to see quite obviously and don't need to serve more of a purpose than that which is obvious. We have come quite far in our loss of prejudice, albeit slowly; women are less discriminated against, people of different races are less discriminated against. But we also have far to go. And this kind of backwards thinking will take is one direction only. Biology is what it is for most (and that is increasingly less the case these days) but we have a conscious ability to end this subscription to stupidity. For it is a choice, for everybody without exception. Let us not be measureed by an IQ test, by genetic or biological attributes, but by what we do to end what we can all clearly see has lived its day too long.

    Posted by Raf on 28/10/2009 12:15:27

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
41. This C4 programme was extremely thought provoking at a time when these arguments about race are so much in the news. But if we ignore all the cultural problems associated with the tests, the critical issue in IQ research is how far does the ability shown in the test predict success educationally and how far this ability is immutable. The research shown in the programme seemed to show that these results may predict educational success but not that they cannot be changed. The research by Prof James Flynn was the most significant here since it would be ridiculous for us to say in 2009 that those tested in the 19th century were effectively morons since their scores by current norms would indicate this. People change as a result of their experiences and this applies to whole populations. There is all sorts of research to show that a greater experience of education raises IQ scores such as that by Vernon et al that showed an average increase of 6 points in the IQ scores of pupils taken before and after the raising of the school leaving age to 16 and hence an extra year in school. There is similar evidence of increases in scores at all ages. So while IQ may predict educational success it depends when you take the test and what educational experiences you have had both in and out of school. I wonder whether the boy from the Bronx all set for entry to university would have had IQ scores that predicted this before he had experienced the success affirming education at his school. Congratulations C4 and personnally I have bought James Flynn's book not that of Lynn.

    Posted by Sonia on 28/10/2009 12:07:23

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
42. On reading though a selection of comments posted here, the words of one of the contributors to the program ring loudly, "We live in a racist society"... A large number of comments mention the success of the West and failure of Africa, a brief look at not so recent history fully explains this, but why bother when the same arguments used to justify slavery fit many of your views so well.

    Posted by Michael Wright on 28/10/2009 11:49:09

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
43. The title was thought provoking so I had to watch. When the programme started I was wondering where Omaar was going, becasue he was listening to these bias individuals. But by the end of the programme, it showed that Omaar had done his research and had come up trumps. Black people have come far has a nation. With all obstatcles that were stacked against them they continued to strive for excellence. Environmental factors would definately effect an individuals capibility and drive and home life.

    Posted by Dee on 28/10/2009 11:25:13

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
44. First of all,any program involving Rageh Omar is worth watching. Many some people should try to educate themselves and do something:close your eyes and this way you won't see your prejudice. As to some comments i read:'Asians are smarter'...the question is not 'i feel better to learn that Asians are smarter ,(then i cannot feel 'superior as a white) but the reason why they are smarter:they've been raised into using their brains and study,and encouraged into believing in their intellectual capacities . Valerio wrote:The Chinese are not yet developped ,in some part of the country as in the West. Can i suggest the excellent programs by Andrew Hart Davies:What the Ancients did for us:you will be enlightened in learning the Arabs,the Chinese,The Egyptians,The Indians,The Aztecs and Mayas invented almost everything long before the 'so called 'developped west we woke up from a long slumber ' Never forget the weight of history;you can't expect population to 'develop'if they are maintained in poverty and denied access to education. Irony of the 20th century:The Nazi with their so called 'superiority of the Aryan Race' and having Einstein as who i would call 'Brain of the Century'.. The proof is in the pudding.

    Posted by MP on 28/10/2009 11:14:42

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
45. After 'examining' conflicting 'evidence' Rageh came to the conclusion that there was no link between race and intelligence. At exactly the same time the Simon and Garfunkel lyrics "still the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" came into my head. For me the jury is still very much out on this debate.

    Posted by Andy on 28/10/2009 08:46:14

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
46. I must say this program is rather biased and not objective. You can see Omaar from the beginning does not take into consideration the possibility that race can play a part in defining intelligence. In fact he talks about "toxic idea", "myth", "plain wrong" and so on about the race-intellingence issue. The truth is he is angry because he is black and he doesn't like to see his race at the bottom of the list. Well, I am white and I have no problem to believe Asians are smarter. The problem is that we live in a society that has no room for free debate, you can only say that "all races are equals" otherwise you a considered a right-winger and that is the same trick Omaar adopts in one of the interviews in the program. I am not surprise by the way the program has been played, Channel Four is a politically correct business and it does an agenda to put forward. I have sensed also a Marxist influence in this program, when for example Omaar says that some black people "have bought in the idea of middle class instead of fighting the system"! Fighting what system? What I find really silly is when the "Omaar side" says that the IQ test results are to do with people living in more developmed country, so what about the Chinese? In many parts of China they are not yet developed as in the West, still they have a better IQ. The last part of the program is even more silly with Omaar that takes the words of Flynn, a human right campaigner, well that says it all, human right campaigners are the most politically correct people in the world, they will never go against any controversial idea. Finally, of course, Barack Obama. I was betting that sooner or later he was going to show up. Now, not to sound too naughty, did you know that apparently some scientits proved that people get their intelligence mostly from their mothers? Yes, you know what I am getting at... By the way, I am going to buy Richard's Lynn book straight away.

    Posted by Valerio on 27/10/2009 23:03:30

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
47. I watched last night's show with great interest. I have never liked the emphasis placed on IQ tests in our society. I have been tested a few times and each time have been given a score that is "below average". On this basis I should be a failure. However I have obtained many qualifications including obtaining first time passes to become a registered chartered accountant and qualified auditor. All of this suggests completely the opposite in that I am a relatively intelligent person to be able to obtain such qualifications. The sooner our society learns that there is never one simple answer to such complex matters, the better off we will all be and the more we can achieve together.

    Posted by Emma on 27/10/2009 22:06:49

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
48. To the author above who says the scientists used in the programme denying the link between race and IQ were well known lefties, one of whom purportedly falsified his claims. How much do you know about Dr Watson and those scientists that support the race/IQ link? Watson has worked for several Neo- Conservative US think tanks. He is also anti-gay. Scientists and Science is not value free. Science is as much a product of its time as any other discipline and has always been used to further ideological ends. It is no coincidence that the 'theory of evolution' was 'discovered' at the height of Victorian Imperial power. Eugenics made credible, claims about Jews, Gypsies and Eastern Europeans to support a Nazi ideology that had taken hold amid fears about the German economy. To misquote Henry Ford: Read History, all Science is bunk.

    Posted by Dewey on 27/10/2009 21:41:35

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
49. With the BNP being in the news a lot recently, this is even more of a touchy subject than normal. Any research in this area is always picked up by offensive racist groups like the BNP and presented in an out of context manner. However, the programmer makers did nothing to demonstrate they had tackled this in a truly serious manner. If fact, you could have worked this programme out in reverse. Given a black presenter, it would have been unthinkable that the programmes conclusion would have suggested that black people were genetically less intelligent, on average, than asians or whites. Seriously, was that even on the cards? Of course not. So, based on that forgone conclusion you can work back through a number of headline bullets points made by some scientist that are then dissected in far more detail by others. I will not go over much of the science, but the MATT post below covers much of it. Many people posting here who are saying there is no difference, say they know plenty of very clever black people. And? I know some very clever people who are black, my best friend who is smarter than me (don't tell him I said that) is 3/4 black. But this counts for nothing as we are looking at the trend across the group. WILL below makes the key point for me. If you currently identify a physical gap as shown on the current bell graph, you can argue than some of this, if not the majority, can be down to environment and other factors that Omaar put forward. However, this does not mean that this is 100% of the difference and genetics are not a factor. This is very poor logic, yet is what the programmes conclusion was. To even float the possibility that genetics may make up a part of the difference was too unpalatable for the programme makers, even though the true science does point this way.

    Posted by Mike on 27/10/2009 21:22:07

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
50. I cannot help but feel that Omar simply spent the length of the film chasing and answer to satisfy his own, possibly preconceived, prejudices? If his own definition of IQ is the "ability to deal with the practicalities of modernity", surely the state of the world economy could disprove his definition entirely. To me, I feel the first half of the program obviously presented the most concrete evidence however right wing it sounded. What if the asian community started to kick up a fuss against the idea that black people are more athletically gifted? Would anyone pay attention? At the end of the day I can't help but feel this is all about making the black community feel better about themselves. Sorry. Please also let's move away from this being a debate between black people and white people.

    Posted by Rich on 27/10/2009 21:06:31

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
51. Another line of enquiry that would have furthered the environment over hereditary case is Ashkenazi Jewish performance on IQ tests. Genetic scientists disagree as to whether these Jews constitute a race and are genetically distinct from other Europeans although some of their ancestry points to Middle East or Arab origin. IQ norms for the last two groups were not provided in the programme but in line with the norm given for the Indian sub-continent (75) this mixture of hereditary would put the Ashkanizim at a disadvantage in comparison to their all European counterparts. Therefore whether Ashkenazi Jews are regarded by geneticists as European or a seperate ethnic group they should perform just as well or worse than Europeans in IQ tests for there to be a genetic basis in intelligence. The fact is they out perform even Asians who we were informed were the most intelligent. Several compelling reasons have been posited for this, none of which are genetic.Historically the prohibition of owning land for Jews meant they eschewed farming which was the main occupation for most of the European population and massed in urban centres, plying mercantile trades and undertaking financial transactions from which Christians were banned all of which required a higher level of intelligence. The practice of the Jewish religion itself, that is being a good Jew involved mastery of a difficult language, memorising large parts of religious text and mastering disputation. These all require intelligence and those that were the best at these endeavours were valued most by the community as rabbinical scholars. The love of scholarship remains at the heart of Jewish culture."Labelling theory" also suggests that an individual’s self-concept based on how they are defined by society is a large indicator in achievement. Jews as 'the chosen' may be more confident in their intellectual prowess compared to those who are negatively labelled. (On this point I would have preferred in the investigation of Black underachievement a summary of the excellent sociological work of Coard et al on labelling in schools and institutional racism, i.e 'black-board' 'black-magic' and how this damages the learners ability).However, I felt the programme was slightly biased in favour of a discussion of one 'race'. Discrimination cuts both ways. Something could have been said about how top US colleges, famously Harvard, formally clamped down on Jewish entrants in the 30's after seeing them flood these seats of learning. Entry requirements were changed from the purely academic to spurious 'character' tests and even physical characteristics, including height to favour the native born American sons. More recently there is talk of a silent quota at MIT putting a ceiling on the number of Asians admitted since they began to overwhelm the student body. What of the case of Indians who although purported to have a general IQ of 75 are heavily represented at the top US and UK colleges as a proportion of their population. Their achievement is seemingly in defiance of genetics and owes more to the value and status of education and the professions in their culture. If the Indians lag so far behind in IQ, how is it that India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world? The Ancient Middle Eastern Muslim culture was the centre for scientific, mathematical and astronimical knowledge. Now presumably the Middle Easterners are lumped in with the Indians at 75. The Ancient Greeks would have out performed the Ancient Briton on an IQ test but would this still be the case today? What of the achievements, particularly in science of the Babylonians, who were black? Dr Watson may be pessimistic about the future of Africa but he seems to be ignorant of its past.Presentlevels of black attainment have been recorded after several centuries of subjugation and imperial ideology.Civilisations rise and fall and a sense of historical perspective would, as always, put this documentary into context.

    Posted by Dewey on 27/10/2009 21:00:22

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
52. "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein I wonder how much is lost by learning to catagorise information rather than describe its function: 1. Dogs and rabbits are both mammals -so what? 2. "One chases the other" -actually more useful! I'm also amazed that IQ tests contain ANY knowledge-based questions at all (such as 'odd man out') when it should test pure intelligence. Maybe those who design these tests need to question their own! I can always answer the image-based puzzles and usually the number patterns, but I'm terrible at anagrams and other word-based puzzles. So how can a single test show my intelligence if I'm better at one type of question and worse at others? Also, I've met smart adults who have no imagination, can't sing in tune and draw like children. Why does this not count when the world needs inventors and designers? My advice is read William Blake, look up 'Fuzzy Logic', learn to meditate, practice mindfulness (through life drawing), and listen openly to different kinds of music!

    Posted by Spectral-Music on 27/10/2009 20:17:06

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
53. I just read every one of these comments and it seems I am not alone in thinking Omar failed with this docmuentary, even though it was very interesting. If you don't have time to read them all just read MATT, he hit the nail on the head, and then you might want to read LUCY too (but for different reasons.)

    Posted by Mike on 27/10/2009 19:06:04

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
54. Something I have wanted to know, and before this program, is if and how intelligence has varied over the time span that humans have been on this planet. I was recently very impressed by the find of a Saxon (?) gold treasure hoard. The art and skill that went into the making of the items found was extraordinary %u2013 at least to me. What, I ask, was the %u201Cintelligence%u201D of the makers? How did it measure up to intelligence today? Or go back a bit, and look at the pyramids. The people who made these %u2013 or at least did the maths %u2013 must have been quite smart. And those pyramid designers were probably smarter than I am. So has %u201Cintelligence%u201D in humans risen over time? Could this intelligence be determined by archaeologists? Or did humans suddenly jump from a %u201Clow%u201D (animal level?) intelligence to where we are today? And if intelligence has risen, has it risen at roughly an equal rate across all racial groups?

    Posted by Theo Hopkins on 27/10/2009 18:12:26

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
55. The Race/intelligence programe was amazing, Rague Ohma was brilliant, I was so captivated by the subject matter. I am a white south african and i have an adopted 9 year old black son who was born in south africa, was an aids orphan. He is the most intelligent child I have ever known, I was deep in thought after the programe is this nature/nurture ? His love for music and maths and history? what comes from me or what is simply just Tim. food for thought for me. Thank you channel 4 and to that wonderful presenter.

    Posted by Ms Merle Masson on 27/10/2009 18:09:08

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
56. Anna - "all anthropologists know that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence" I'm very sorry, but you anthropologists got it really wrong: g factor correlates with brain size as 0.44 (data on MRI), which is a large correlation. And since in this particular case we measure a biological phenomenon vs. psychological, it is possible to safely conclude that here we deal with causative relationship. The late marxist S Gould, a fierce hater of psychometrics had to drop the whole chapter in his Mismeasure of Man simply because these new data if shown would devastate his critique. The connection between IQ and brain size IS established. The difference between male and female brains (smaller in females) results from smaller amount of white matter which is associated with spatio-temporal abilities and corresponding difference in ST IQ grades in clearly visible in any standard exam. Since verbal IQs are same then the overall M-F difference boils down to small but significant 3 point difference. Plus different width of standard deviation which determines why so few women are present in the highest ranks of REAL hard science - simply because there are less really smart and dumb females (2.1:1 M:F ratio above and below IQs 130 and 70, respectively)

    Posted by RF on 27/10/2009 17:26:50

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
57. I think the nurture against nature arguement could have been helped by a closer scrutiny of IQ tests themselves, which are, after all, the instrument of measurement. All tests include a verbal component alongside the arguably universal pictorial differentiation which tests spacial and logical ability. As part of this verbal component those tested are asked questions such as the one we heard last night about Winston Churchill. It is unlikely that the aboriginal population or the majority of the unschooled indians in India would know who these figures are. Another example of this cultural bias is illustrated by an IQ test I took at school. I had to identify the odd one out in the following: yhdan tzomar lviadvi kdcneis The answer of course is the last one; Dickens, as the previous three are all anagrams of famous composers. But the question assumes a particular type of cultural knowledge, one that would be more familiar to the middle-classes as opposed to the lower classes and to Europeans as opposed to other population groups. This type of bias has not been eradicated in new IQ tests devised to solve the problem.It is probably impossible to have standardised testing, certainly to the degree that a valid 'league table' between populations could exist.

    Posted by Dewey on 27/10/2009 17:16:00

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
58. Can ideology triumph over science? Well on C4 it certainly can. We were treated to a very sketchy look at the science and a very lengthy piece of opinion by Mr. Omar. One of the things the famous Dr. Watson said was this: "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." It is an observation which Mr. Omar should have given some consideration but which he found it more expedient to overlook. There is a great deal more science at hand which bears on this subject, not least studies which look at the onset of puberty by ethnic group. The human body uses the same resources to develop the brain that it uses to develop all the other parts of the body. Before puberty it is the brain which is developing most quickly, which is why pre-pubescent children learn more easily than adults. With the onset of puberty the body diverts resources to the development of sexual organs and to muscular growth. Often the minds of adolescents are distracted, as is very well known. So obviously those ethnic groups which get puberty later have a longer time in which to develop their mental faculties. (I posted all this already but I must have fallen foul of the censor, so I won't include any further examples save one). East Asian people can get puberty very late in life, sometimes as late as nineteen or twenty years old. In other parts of the world, young people are entering puberty as early as nine. So obviously those people who experience later puberty are at a huge advantage in terms of mental development. The onset of puberty is determined mainly by the balance of hormones in the body. Different ethnic groups have different average hormone balances, resulting in different physical types. I shall not enlarge further for fear of giving offence but the conclusion is very obvious. These are the facts of life. Dr. Watson is not, in my opinion, a racist; he is simply stating a difficult truth.

    Posted by Johnstone on 27/10/2009 17:09:16

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
59. I think the nurture against nature arguement could have been helped by a closer scrutiny of IQ tests themselves, which are, after all, the instrument of measurement. All tests include a verbal component alongside the arguably universal pictorial differentiation which tests spacial and logical ability. As part of this verbal component those tested are asked questions such as the one we heard last night about Winston Churchill. It is unlikely that the aboriginal population or the majority of the unschooled indians in India would know who these figures are. Another example of this cultural bias is illustrated by an IQ test I took at school. I had to identify the odd one out in the following: yhdan tzomar lviadvi kdcneis The answer of course is the last one; Dickens, as the previous three are all anagrams of famous composers. But the question assumes a particular type of cultural knowledge, one that would be more familiar to the middle-classes as opposed to the lower classes and to Europeans as opposed to other population groups. This type of bias has not been eradicated in new IQ tests devised to solve the problem.It is probably impossible to have standardised testing, certainly to the degree that a valid 'league table' between populations could exist.

    Posted by Dewey on 27/10/2009 16:49:45

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
60. Great program. I was quietly furious when I saw the subject and struggled to understand why either the concept race (no scientific basis) or intelligence (what is that anyway) could still be a topic of conversation. But when I saw the racist nature of some of the studies I saw why Rageh Omaar took on this fraught topic. For anyone who took the time to listen carefully I think he did a great job of dismissing the theories of race and intelligence as pure rubbish. And to people like Stan Mason posting here who thinks the wealth/poverty differences between Africa, Europe and Asia prove the race/intelligence theory I suggest he read 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond to understand that there is far more than the concept of IQ at play here! Well done Mr Omaar - thanks for your courage.

    Posted by Joe Kearns on 27/10/2009 16:25:18

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
61. Speaking as a Cambridge-educated black middle class professional,I thought Mr Omah's documentary was throughly thought-provoking. I think it's fair to say that race alone can not account for how intelligent you are or what you achieve. Environment, self-belief and opportunities play a much more significant role in this. To say that black people excel in sport ,except swimming, is far too simplistic,as akin to education, success in any sport requires opportunity to partake in that sport and I am sure that if more black people were to actually take part in such sports, then we would succeed in those domains too. With regards to brain size,like with any body organ, the size of your brain is irrelevant.Certainly it depends on how much you use and how.

    Posted by LADYDR on 27/10/2009 16:03:20

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
62. I watched the programme last night and found that it did not come up with anything new and was right. Of course race does not determine intelligence, if you look at history Blacks have been and always will be the most supressed race over the last 600 years, I understand the Jews were persecuted but by predominantly one man blacks were persecuted by amongst others the portuguese, spanish, english, americans so really to comeback from that will take some doing. I speak as a mixed race person from the inner city who is now a graduate and and accountant who works in the city it can be done but it is 10 times as hard and many a times you feel like just giving up so of course background plays a massive part in "intelligence" and opportunity. Also blacks generally have more muscle density than whites hence the athleticism compared to non blacks how do you explain less inteliigence in race less "brain cells" yeh right !!!

    Posted by Afrolatin on 27/10/2009 15:58:49

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
63. A very big thanks you to you Omaar for taking the bull by the horns and enlight a society which still somehow segregate in some very subtle ways indeed. I am a French mixed race citizen and everywhere Ive lived so far and spent long period of time working and paying my taxes, Ive always been under the impression of being treated as a second class citizen...whether here in the UK, France, Spain and also Belgium. I am now a psychology and sociology lecturer in Scotland and I must say that I have to literally fight my way through to be showed the same respect (in all sense of the term...) as my middle class white counterparts sometimes. This attitude is so rooted in society that I have been in situations where I could feel students doubting my 'expertise' in my field quite clearly. Indeed it is extremely difficult to detect it because it is not 'tolerated' but it does take place in very subtle ways as you know. I have sent a email to my work colleagues today (about 100 or so)which I am pasting here: Hi, I did have a thought about sending this email and then I thought it was part of my duty to do so%u2026 I do not know about you but I thought that this programme was very refreshing and demonstrated quite well the kind of society we are still living in%u2026a society with second class citizens. The reason for that fact is your decision to make%u2026 Regards to all, David. Merci mon ami

    Posted by David Bouttier on 27/10/2009 15:50:27

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
64. I agree with TIM123. I am afraid (to utilise Rageh Omaar's own words) the black man triumphed over the journalist. We all accept that different races tend to have different skin colours, facial features and physiques. Why then should we conclude that, uniquely, we all have the same intelligence? A recent study indicated that Germans tend to have higher IQ's than Brits. It's perhaps not comfortable to know but it's something we have to live with. That IQ levels and educational achievement can change over time I would accept but it helps no-one to treat scientific research as racist merely because its conclusions are uncomfortable.

    Posted by Bill on 27/10/2009 15:20:31

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
65. That was arguably the best documentary I've seen in years. Everyone should see it. Kudos to Channel 4 and Rageh Omaar.

    Posted by Geoff Ho on 27/10/2009 15:14:59

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
66. I was most disappointed with Rageh Omaar's reporting on this programme. It is the duty of a journalist to be impartial when reporting on a matter, how ever difficult it maybe, and Mr Omaar most certainly did no deliver in this sense tonight. Mr Omaar's beliefs were quite obvious, which should never be apparent from a truly impartial examination and were clearly determined from the outset of the programme. He was most animated and listened intently when the interviewee shared his opinion and became visibly uncomfortable and frustrated when questioning those whose belief he did not share. One most important factor that was not discussed, was what in fact intelligence really is. As I understand it, it is ones ability to think clearly and logically. It is no surprise therefore that IQ tests developed over 100 years ago for a non multicultural population of westerners would not necessarily be a good indication of how clearly and logically those from other cultures can perform. I have long admired Mr Omaar's work, but this piece has given me great concern to adjust my opinion.

    Posted by Steve Thompson on 27/10/2009 14:53:47

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
67. Having done a quick bit of research myself I found that the demographics of US universities are not as biased towards east asians as the show made out. The obvious flaw in Rageh's claim is that Berkeley's intake is largely from California where there is a much larger east asian population and simiarly smaller african american population than the US as a whole. I could not find the demographics of Berkeley but was able to compare the demographics of UCLA with those of California and did the same with Georgia and its state university. The result is that african amercians are not as poorly represented as the show suggested and east asians are only marginally over represented. The show tackled a difficult question but I feel it failed to be scientific, something it aimed to be. The question is almost impossible to answer especially without a clear definition of intelligence, or as Rageh declared it "innate intelligence", to come to any conclusions without an unbiased test (with regard to social conditions) and an acceptable definition is therefore a mistake.

    Posted by Henry on 27/10/2009 14:52:16

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
68. I was supprised the question was asked. As a white british male I just assumed that although the human race has different physical features. There is no difference, when it comes to genetics in terms of intellegence or physical capabilities. I have recently seen programmes about twins which analysed the effects of genetics and environment. I also watched a programme about serial killers, which showed a connection with genetics but showed that the the real connection was environment. It seems that all the programmes I have seen about genetics show there is an influence or an effect but the biggest influence appears to be environment. The most important thing I believe I learned and suspected anyway was that environment has the greatest influence. As was pointed out the east asians appear to be influenced by the teachings of confucius which encourages a greater work ethic and appears to give them a focus and self belief which most of us lack. Rageh Omaar stated that black people needed a confucius type influence. I believe he is right but not just black people, many white people would benefit from the kind of focus and dicipline the east asians appear to show, this includes myself.

    Posted by Glen on 27/10/2009 14:48:36

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
69. I was a little bit disappointed with the final part of the program. What is the point of showing Mr Obama at the end of the program? We have to be honest with ourselves. Despite the color of his skin, Mr Obama was mainly raised by a white American mother (who upheld a Middle class American value). The only father Mr Obama knew was Mr Soetoro, who is an Indonesian (who upheld Asian-Javanese value). The "God worshipping" attitude towards Mr Obama will not solve the problem of inequality.

    Posted by Markus Sebastian on 27/10/2009 14:43:14

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
70. I've always admired Mr Omah as a brave, intelligent man. But really - look at Africa today. Look at the Far East. Look at the UK and Europe. Case proved. Unfortunate, but blindingly obvious.

    Posted by Stan Mason on 27/10/2009 13:53:04

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
71. An excellent well-balanced and thought-provoking programme. I thought it focused too much on the black/white issue when there are more differences between the multiplicity of races on this planet than just colour. I was intrigued that so much research has been done on this subject by academics and yet they still have such a disparity of opinions, but I was heartened to learn that social conditions and family security boosted educational aspirations. I am still not sure that educational achievement is a measure of intelligence, but then what is the true measure of IQ? All I can say is that if, as a white woman, I am supposed to have superior intellect then it was not apparent when I was a child. My parents constantly called me an "idiot" and "good-for-nothing". Further Education was considered a waste of time when I could be bringing a wage into the home. Consequently I underachieved and thought of myself as a failure, until at the age of 51 when a Mensa test put my IQ into the top 1% of the population. Did I achieve this result by avid reading? Did I have an inherited ability? Is the Mensa test a measure of all round intelligence? I don't know, but my success in the test gave me confidence to change my life dramatically and to achieve academic goals that I thought were beyond me. If nothing else I think the perception of intelligence instills self-confidence, whatever one's race.

    Posted by Wendy on 27/10/2009 13:46:57

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
72. A Programme that roughly translated to : We don't like the results of IQ tests, so lets just ignore that and change the tests. A programme of left wing inspired dis-information.

    Posted by DOWIE on 27/10/2009 13:31:06

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
73. Shame on Channel 4 for losing your nerve. The remit was clearly not "Let's investigate the effect of race on average intelligence" but rather "Let's make a documentary to show that race has no effect on average intelligence". I think that the series title says it all.

    Posted by Tim123 on 27/10/2009 13:25:01

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
74. As an ex-member of Mensa, I can say proudly that IQ tests demonstrate how good you are at, er, IQ tests. There's perhaps a better way of assessing intelligence across the races and identifying where the right environments for learning are (which apparently evens out any racial bias). So, where are the world's richest and poorest countries? Which countries have produced the most notable scientists and inventions? Which countries have produced the most widely acclaimed writers? Ah, no, hang on a minute...

    Posted by Bill on 27/10/2009 13:21:28

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
75. I felt this programme was excellent considering the constraints of time and the willingness of interviewees to promote their opinions and findings. My husband is a teacher who has always stated that the students he had come across(irrespective of cultural background) who did the best were the ones who were strongly supported by their parents/carers (although as with everything there are exceptions proving that in every way not everything is as black and white as some people would like to think). It would be interesting to know how the scientists who supported the Race determines IQ level argument would explain the issue of the underacheivement of white boys. For those who felt that the issue regarding the over-represetnation of certain cultural groups in sport should have been expored, I think the simple reason why it wasn't is possibly because this programme was exploring cognitive and intellectual ability and not physical prowess. That may be another programme. However I guess as with most emotive issues not everybody would be pleased with the outcomes of this programme but I for one personally felt it was very well done. I look forward to seeing what else this season has to offer.

    Posted by Shannon on 27/10/2009 13:08:01

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
76. This programme was very interesting, but I couldn't help feeling a little disappointed. Its conclusions - that performance in IQ tests is more related to background, upbringing, parental values and opportunities than ethnic affiliation - are obvious to most people, and it seemed in fact that the programme was trying to sensationalise the issue. It did seem that through editing, or lack of further questioning, R stopped when an interviewee said something apparently racist - making it appear more inflammatory than it would have been if the point had been explored further. Also, as a forensic anthropologist, I was interested to hear the point made about biological differences between the skeletons of the races. This is key to anthropologists who try to help police by providing a profile of an unidentified skeleton. We are hindered by very antiquated Victorian ideas of racial differences, based on tiny sample sizes and populations, and actually find it very difficult to determine 'race' based on the skeletal evidence - undermining the scientist's 'evidence'. And, all anthropologists know that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence - Neanderthals had much bigger brains (by volume) than modern humans, and could not compete cognitively at all! These points left me wanting to shout at the telly - it seems there is quite a lot of controversy and hoo hah over nothing!

    Posted by Anna on 27/10/2009 12:26:40

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
77. unfortunately never seen all the show but what i did see was hugely impressive yet disturbing, personally i believe enviroment and family are the main catalysts for so called "intellect". us in belfast have a divided white community on the whole yet the catholic contingent from what im aware of seem to be head and shoulders academically more able than our protestant neighbours. ive always put this down to the emphasis the catholic church placed on education as a means of rising above the inequalities rather than brian power. those scholars that point to race as an answer have obviously chosen certain aspects to support this but those methods can be used by any group or person to support their agenda. great to see such sensible and rational reporting on such an emotive issue. hopefully the days of big brother are gone for ch4 and the programs that challenge our mind to think and make our own decisions will be the mantra for the future.

    Posted by niall maskey on 27/10/2009 12:19:43

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
78. This was an excellent show, extremely informative. Unfortunately I found it biased, almost as if the topic wasn't being approached with an open mind. A presenter should have been chosen that didn't have a "vested interest" in the outcome. I felt uncomfortable watching Rageh interview those scientists with opinions that didn't fit his own. Even though I disagree with those "rascist" scientists, I didn't feel that they were rascist for believing what they did, simply that they had come to conclusions based on evidence that they had collected, but had failed to look at the broader picture. The broader picture being: Why do people of African descent tend to perform worse at school? Are these social, economic or cultural reasons as opposed to biological ones?

    Posted by Steve on 27/10/2009 12:09:19

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
79. I was not persuaded that IQ and race are unconnected. I may have been persuaded if Rageh had reported, in more detail: 1. Studies that correlated IQ and race within mixed race populations 2. Studies that correlated IQ and environment within same race populations This debate still can and must be 'put to bed'. Any takers? Rageh, a follow-up?

    Posted by Bounceideas on 27/10/2009 11:34:12

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
80. Think the strongest evidence was Flynn's, he's actually studied the changes in IQ scores over decades, so he's the only one really qualified to comment. And when he pointed out that the highest IQ scoring blacks in the USA do not all have the most European genetic matches it was pretty clear that the "race predicts intelligence" argument cannot be based on genetics. Social factors seem much more prevalent. To sum up: stupid people come in all colours. quelle surprise!

    Posted by Ki on 27/10/2009 11:19:49

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
81. Saw the programme last night and wasn't surprised. It was inevitable that C4 would not conclude that IQ had a racial basis. Rageh's attitude towards the hereditarians was just truculent and didn't go into any detail on the science behind it, which is overwhelming. He didn't ask questions as to why East Asians (Chinese / Japanese etc) have far more adaptive cultures than blacks do; it has to start somewhere - it's obvious that such a culture is the product of an intelligent race, rather than the other way round - that could hardly happen by accident. He didn't examine the obvious point that even once you have an adaptive culture that could (emphasis could) explain some of the IQ gap, that that culture would select for intelligence, therefore turning the genetic focus into a reality. He didn't point out that middle-class blacks who do well and go to university study the softer subjects, like media studies, cultural studies, and so on, and make up a miniscule percentage of scientists. He didn't mention the studies that show that adopted black kids who have a large amount of white ancestry but which is unknown to them and their adopting families, have IQs between the black and white norms, where discrimination could not have been a factor. He didn't point out that many persecuted races have done very well; look at the Jews or Chinese - both, especially the former in Europe, have had more than their fair share of persecution - adversity does not explain the black-white difference. He went through the assinine "more difference within than between the races" statement that omits the fact that the two are irrelevant to each other; that the difference between is more than within does not mean there's no difference between. Also did the 'race does not exist' angle despite mountains of research / common sense to the contrary, yet concluded that prejudice of a racial nature was to blame for IQ disparities.... eh?! But most revealingly, he didn't point out something that I've always thought was suspect; if adverse conditions were to affect black - and white - IQs in comparison to East Asian ones (quite how, I don't know), then you wouldn't expect the normal bell curve distribution to be present; you'd expect a skewed graph; little effect on the left side where lower IQ is unlikely to get any lower, but with a sudden plummet at about 85 where the average on his graph was grouped. Yet the distribution either side of 85 is the same pattern as for whites and East Asians, if not the same average score; that's a NORMAL distribution!!!

    Posted by Matt on 27/10/2009 10:21:34

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
82. Thank you Rageh Omaar and all who made last nights film. It was spot on and buried all those despicable myths (that make us despair for the human race). Please repeat / make it as available as possible to all. Really grateful and best wishes Seb

    Posted by seb on 27/10/2009 10:03:55

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
83. I felt that the program was balanced appropriately enough and offered a range of views regarding the concept of 'race' and underachievement. I felt that one important view it did highlight and conclude however, was the importance of culture as a significant factor affecting educational achievement. I feel that policy makers here in the UK have been slightly negligent in taking into account the level of impact this factor can have, often with too much emphasis being placed on material and financial deprivation (which also is likely to contribute to underachievement). However, I do believe that having the right mind-set to succeed / work hard etc can lead to higher educational attainment within our system here in the UK. well done to the program makers in tackling what can often be a very contentious and sensitive issue.

    Posted by addie on 27/10/2009 09:53:40

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
84. Very interesting programme, enjoyed it throughout. congrats to Rageh Omaar, even thought some the comments by so called scholars were offensive he remained composed. Rageh Omar is the very few black role models for the black community. Same praise goes to channel 4 too for providing quality programme such as this.

    Posted by Kadar on 27/10/2009 09:22:05

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
85. Well done for making the show. I think the British anthropologist and youth worker said it best that we cannot be complacent if WE think it is not relevant when it is to Black kids fearful of appearing white. I think you missed a major opportunity that would have blown the question out of the water. The clues were there and all you needed to do was look at the IQ tables through wealth and white. What happens when you look at IQ of poor white people? My guess is the average drops closer to the classical black average for reasons well identified in the show. This would have succinctly proved your nurture and not nature line. Do a follow up on how do we fix social inequalities!! Regards David

    Posted by David Ridsdale on 27/10/2009 08:29:18

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
86. I enjoyed RO's excellent documentary, but there's far more to the issue than was presented by the array of scientists and psychologists interviewed on the programme. It's a shame that there were no analytical/depth psychologists or any experts on the gnostic approach to consciousness interviewed as either would have gone far deeper into the nature of consciousness and the overstated emphasis on IQ. I've been a member of British Mensa for about 18 years and one of the first surprises I had on joining was observing that most persons with high IQs were no more or less perceptive than others I know with medium or low IQs. I wish I had room here to qualify that; however my discovery lead me to begin designing a PQ (Perception Quotient) test which instead of being concerned with the low and high of intelligence would focus on the narrow or wide (or the shallow or deep) of perception. By 'perception' I mean the ability to look within, to discern (to intuitively as well as logically analyse), and to understand on a more holistic level. One minor example of the difference between intelligence and perception as I use the terms is that a person with a high IQ wouldn't necessarily be an empathic person by default, while a deep/wide PQ person would be. The great sages of all world cultures were and are very deep/wide PQ persons; comparatively many modern scientists are shallow/narrow PQ by my standards (I love good science, but I'm often appalled by the narrow band PQ of some scientists. High IQ Prejudice = narrow PQ!). Although R's conclusion was that environment is a major factor in IQ (and of course it is), I personally don't fit that model. Genetically I'm at least Anglo-Celtic on my mother's side, and at least Latin-Slav-Turk (or other Eastern) on my father's side; I came from a very poor working class background (neither parent was either high IQ or PQ) and I was on the minus side of average in all school subjects except art (I was generally bottom end of the B stream throughout junior and secondary school). I probably wouldn't have scored 100 in an IQ test. But after school I became obsessed with the nature of consciousness and found I wanted to KNOW absolutely everything (not to believe, have an opinion or to theorise, but to KNOW) and only then did I begin to flower. I'm now 58, and aged about 40 I passed the British Mensa entrance test. My IQ is now circa 156. However, as it's me designing the PQ test, I already know all the answers and my PQ is off the charts! Thanks for a very necessary documentary, Rageh. PS: Rageh, are you aware of the Ancient Gnostic categories of perception: hylic, psychic and pneumatic (essentially materialist, intellectual/psychological, and intuitive/holistic/spiritual)? The ancient Hindu mystics also had a parallel model. Have you also considered that psychological typology is also a very relevant factor re IQ? When you understand the multidimensional dynamics of consciousness, and/or when you real-ise that certain persons of all ethnic groups throughout history have been mega-wide and mega-deep PQ dudes and dudettes, you realise that although IQ measurement has it's place, it's really of minor relevance, and that its overemphasis helps us miss the much, much bigger picture.

    Posted by Chay Tana on 27/10/2009 05:24:59

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
87. I have to admit I was disappointed by this programme. Whilst it did touch on a number of important issues and ultimately arrive at most of the conclusions I've come to myself over the years, the attitude of the presenter and the way the show was presented was CLEARLY biased. The fact that he basically admitted that this would be the case did nothing to alleviate the irritation in seeing him deal with the different interviewees based on their beliefs. Anyone who shared his opinion was spoken to with interest and an attempt to explore their ideas. Anyone he disagreed with was met with abrupt answers that were designed to make them look like the "bad guys." Combined with blatant evocative imagery (like holding the barred fence whilst a school seemed unreachable on the other side) and the whole show just ended up clouding the matter with more personal opinion, something that really doesn't help in the situation. I understand that it would be difficult for him but it’s part of a journalist’s job to take an impartial viewpoint no matter what the subject matter is or the report will be invalidated. I'd really hoped that by having a black person explore the issue we'd be able to avoid the typical calls of racism that get levelled against anyone who tries to explore the issue but now we’re just going to have calls from the “other” side that the programme failed to take the issue seriously, just as I feared it would. The programme was right when it highlighted environmental factors as to why some people don't have higher test scores and I say "some" people instead of black people because I've seen the same effect happening on a large proportion of white people these days. Sometimes they're called chavs, other times they're called rednecks. The truth is no matter where you go in the world you'll always find people with bad economic backgrounds who are unable to get a decent education and therefore will score lower in any test they do. The only reason it becomes such an issue with black people is because of all the mistreatment they’ve suffered over the years. It’s now impossible to comment on an offender of African origin in the same way that offenders of other cultural origins are commented upon without someone raising the racism flag and the whole issue turning into a flaming argument that always ends with the commenter being labelled a racist. Even the reporter said that numerous people didn’t want to enter into the debate for fear of being attacked for it. At the end of the day we have to admit that there is a problem and address it instead of accusing anyone who suggests this racist. There IS a gap in intelligence between different “races” though perhaps “cultures” would be a better word. Different cultures value different things for different reasons. Reasons that have been affected by the environments they’ve lived in for the tens of thousands of years that humans have been evolving. As a result, different cultures display different levels of ability in different disciplines. For example, people of African origin are far better than other cultures at athletic ability. As a result of environmental differences that have had an effect on isolated cultures (we only really began to diversify in the last 100 years) for hundreds of generations I believe there are genetic differences in people that do affect tests of mental abilities. However I think these differences CAN and are being overcome. I, for one, would love to see a day when all the averages are equal across cultures. What I think we should be doing for EVERYONES benefit is promoting intelligence and learning as being something to aspire to. We need to change the way our kids see intelligence and make it something that they want to achieve.

    Posted by Ben on 27/10/2009 00:49:27

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
88. While I appreciate how Rageh Omaar has bravely tried to tackle this taboo subject of race and IQ I was amazed at how it was largely only a comparison between 'White' people and 'Black' people. The focus seemed to be entirely on the difference (or lack of) between African-American or African people and European people. I was dissapointed that there was only a minute reference to 'Asian' people which in itself was only focusing or generalising on the Chinese. I myself am a british born Pakistani woman and have been subject to racism and could absolutely identify with the shock and sadness on Mr Omaar's face when he faced those with claims of white genetic superiority. I just wish he hadnt been so insecure. It felt to me like it was about him more than anyone else. It was not an education. Very dissapointing.

    Posted by Ummay Ghalsoom on 27/10/2009 00:33:44

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
89. Thank you for this exploration Mr Omaagh. An implication of your conclusions however seems to be: - that certain cultures (african/aboriginal) are inferior at developing intelligence (as the IQ and related tests look at development of different aspects of the brain) - and/or that even intelligence is subject to a western model to which all indigenous cultures cannot conform. What the Flint effect demonstrated to me isn't so much a convergence in intellect, but a homogenisation of cultures to one 'ideal'...and therefore, the disappearance of different ways of processing thought. I find each of these conclusions disturbing. I was disappointed that you could not always keep journalistic impartiality in interviews. Your open hostility to the interviewee when querying his conclusions about brain size, meant that we were not able to find out what differences led him to his conclusions. All we know is that he concluded that female brains differ in spatial awareness. What areas of the african brain supposedly suffered in the size wars? I am however impressed that you decided to allow us to see your own vulnerability in the IQ test and interviews. I am also happy that you tackled an issue that creates so many barriers for black people. It isn't the last taboo, but I think, the basis for the way that we have been and are still regarded. It does make me wonder even more, where and how I should choose to raise children. How (and where) can they gain the best advantages in life and have the opportunity to contribute fully to and advance society in whatever capacity they choose. The fact that this is still a more difficult question for someone like me, is, I think, very revealing.

    Posted by Black British Woman J on 27/10/2009 00:26:01

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
90. Well done to Rageh for such a considered and well made programme, and serious credit for listening to all the arguments, however offensive some of them must have been to him personally. However I think there was a missed opportunity to point out the irrelevance of working out an average IQ for any group of people, however you want to define it. The essential problem, in my opinion, seems to be that people assume "this group has a low average IQ" implies "all the individuals have a low IQ", which is obviously completely wrong. I think the programme could have pointed out that an average IQ, whatever it is, is a pretty useless piece of information. Apart from that, seriously good programme making!

    Posted by Rich Wilson on 26/10/2009 23:43:35

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
91. Well this was really interesting but it didn't really close the case did it? The predictable conclusions of the doc were in many ways very reasonable but some questions were avoided. The 'bad guys' claims weren't fully addressed. Races are different and display different characteristic abilities, we can clerly see that black people are on average stronger and faster than white people and that some breeds of dog are smarter than others. So, if races are different shouldn't we expect to see some differences in their ability to do different things both physically or mentally? and the brain size issue was not really addressed. OK there is a small tribe somewhere who have tiny heads who are really clever but does this scientist really think that brain size has absolutely no effect on intelligence? I am convinced that IQ tests aren't a good measure of intelligence and that the may not even be one better, but I just think that if you did have an accurate measure of intelligence, that if you then took four different breeds of dog and measured their intelligence I would be very surprised if they all came out to be exactly the same, and the same applies to humans. The brain is the only organ we use to think and if our brains are physically different then I would be surprised if they all produce the same performance. I don't belive the IQ scores should be taken as evidence that one race is more stupid than another. Maybe there is another test that could prove that black people are the cleverest and asians the stupidest. A lot depends on the test used but I refuse to believe that 4 or 5 different races of any species would produce the same score if we could really measure intelligence, someone has to be on top and someone has to be at the bottom. The documentary was good in that it asked some interesting questions but the conclusion was, for me, guilty of doing what Omar spoke about at the start of the show and sweeping the issue back under the carpet same carpet which it had pulled it out from under.

    Posted by mike on 26/10/2009 23:43:01

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
92. Why did the programme blur out the IQ test paper Mr Omar struggled with - was it very easy and he was ashamed of how dull he was

    Posted by ben on 26/10/2009 23:40:15

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
93. Well done to an extent Rageh, and Channel 4 for having the courage to tackle this highly controversial topic. However I felt, ultimately, that you did not truly do so. As the programme went on, it slipped away from its initial objective of straight scientific analysis towards a soppy, soft focus "we blacks can do it if we just believe in it hard enough" approach. I also was disturbed by the denigration of IQ testing. They are quite specifically not meant to be about how high we might score if we really, really tried, or if we only went to the right school or had a better mum and dad, or lived in a better neighbourhood. They are meant to be a measure of intelligence, pure and simple. It would be remarkable, wouldn't it, if you stand back and think about it, that the human races of this earth, having evolved separately for 40,000 years to the extent that we look completely different from each other, were nonetheless to have been bestowed with identical brainpower. A related taboo, by the way, that the programme didn't explore, is why blacks are so much better than us whites at most sports (although not swimming!) And of course, whites like me, should we wish to claim to be the master race, must bear in mind that orientals appear to be the brainiest race of all. Perhaps the races of planet earth must learn to be a bit more racist - in a good way - in that we acknowledge there are differences between us - but that in doing so we don't look down on each other but value the qualities that the races and individuals within each race bring.

    Posted by Rob Davies on 26/10/2009 23:31:30

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
94. Just want to congratulate Rageh Omaar for a superb programme....great balance and equity. It must have taken some courage and self-discipline to keep his cool at times, but he did, and was always careful to give opinions that were hard to take as much weight as those attitudes that were more understandable. Thank you all for a hard-hitting, courageous programme. B. Bourke, Galway, Ireland.

    Posted by Barbara Bourke on 26/10/2009 23:27:50

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
95. i think not all white people are clever than blacks.there so many not so smart whites who are no match to black african for that matter.any white who thinks is smarte than a black man is stupid

    Posted by tyaldo on 26/10/2009 23:26:48

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
96. I saw the last 20 minutes of the programme Race and Intelligence does it matter. Very stimulating. Personnaly I doubt if it matters what race you are, our brains are probably very simailar. Any differences are more likey due to basics such as quality of food & water, security and education at home and in school. I dont like the term race, for me it implies 1 race/colour of people sees it self as superior to another. Its I belive unfortunatley much simpler one group/tribe/village/race of humans what ever colour/nation/economic community etc since the begining of time/history have always exploited/attacked others. Humans are gentically/naturally aggressive/fearful animals and its unlikely that there will be much change in the near future. Its the human race in all its colours and shapes. We can make laws and educate people to respect others, live peacfully, avoid wars and have prosperous lives for all, this what we must hope and aspire to. The most important issue now is the increase in size of the human population its becoming unsustainable and will result in more wars and discrimination between the rich and poor as we fight for scarce resources. This is rarley disccussed when climate change is mentioned or racism. More people means more nationilism and racism.

    Posted by Rich on 26/10/2009 23:25:42

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
97. I found this programme very interesting as it openly shows there is a fundemental difference with-in the sciences at our universities,How can we be expected to believe the human race evolved from african type origin and at the same time believe that there is less inteligence in african type beings? if we look at the term IQ we can compare it to measurement getting from A-B is further in cms than yards but the distance is still the same! both are different values to measure given points. the simplest explanation to this question is a question itself why is it someone who has a high IQ level is normally a person who is not very practical in day to tasking, this is something that spans all of the continental species of the human race. education is the art of teaching memory tasks whilst we are babies our memory is at its busiest and apart from what is passed naturally from heridity our enviroment plays the significant roll in our inteligence in western society our attidude towards africans has also been brutal in the past when all the facts are brought together there is no real value to IQ levels and it is purely scientists looking too much for answers to explain life. we could no better explain this debate than we could the origins of the universe.

    Posted by Dave on 26/10/2009 23:25:27

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
98. I think that culture has some relationship to IQ; and also that high IQ can be inherited. I understand that my IQ is 148. Family folklore has it that I have inherited my intelligence from my mother's grandfather. My mother had an influence on my learning before I started school, but I drive myself to more learning and I am the one responsible for my choice of learning. I am not convinced that race determines IQ. There are many prominent black people who influence society, including the current US president. I note the cultural effect, which gives eastern asians an advantage in academic studies. I must admit that I am not sure about IQ as a measure of academic ability, I understand that there are other tests, which can be used to assess acedemic ability.

    Posted by Edward Godden on 26/10/2009 23:20:25

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
99. No mention of affirmative action? If IQ is unimportant why is there a two tier grade system in America? Mr Omaar spent half the program trying to rubbish IQ scores and the other half telling us how the gap can be closed. Make your mind up. Poor

    Posted by Nick Gleed on 26/10/2009 23:16:32

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
100. I knew regardless of the evidence..the IQ and race theory was going to end on the assumption that it is incorrect. I know that The White Beauty Myth...is going to be a myth. I don' know why they made this one..nobody says there's a white beuty myth, coming from europe we'll have a more european ideal...just as in Asia they will have an asian ideal. I know that the Is It Better To Be Mixed Race...Guess what...the programme will say-Yes it is! I know that How Racist Are You...will only demonise white people as racist...forget the racism in other races...like the cast system in India...the Jewish attitude towards the Palestinains...Only whites can be racist. And Races Dirty Secret will be dressed up a pseudo science. But what of the possiility of racial equality being an idelogically based pseudo science too? (no one will ask.)

     Posted by phil on 26/10/2009 23:13:35

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
101. Im white, middleclass. I watched with a pre-determined reservation that this was another 'victim' programme. 5 minutes in I thought 'oh here we go hes telling me how he "feels"... Well how I was proven wrong. This was a very well presented, excellent piece of journalism. Very well done Channel 4 and Rageh.

     Posted by Chris Turner on 26/10/2009 23:10:40

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
102. Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, provides a superbly accessible explanation of where some of the views examined in this documentary come from - he demonstrates that "intelligence" or "success" is more often than coincidentally a combination of layers of specific advantages/circumstances, some of which may be genetic/racial as well as social/cultural - but as culture and race are frequently closely related we often confuse the two.

     Posted by Anoirtac on 26/10/2009 23:04:16

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
103. Just seen the Rageh Omaar program on race and intelligence. The Chinese students put their names written in magnificent gold on a Temple, whilst the black students imitated it by scrawling marker pen graffiti on a wall. I think that perfectly summed up the difference between the races. Also, why didn't the programme mention Jews being at the top? It felt like something was missing...

     Posted by Abraham on 26/10/2009 23:03:08

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
104. While Rageh has proved his courage both by standing in Baghdad and reporting that America was firing at him, he has unfortunately squibbed the thesis of his program on the racial sciences of IQ. What is confirmed by his long program is that race cannot be debated like any other topic in social science; it is way too important for anybody to remain scientifically agnostic. Luckily I should expect to know all I need to about the race/ IQ debate in UK, and it took only one and a bit hours. Rgeretfully I have spent most of my 59 years teaching and learning in higher education, on the way earning 5 university degrees in psychology, science and education which have clearly not informed me sufficiently to warrant any validity (But this was in the antipodes, and I may have both aboriginal and maori genes, so I couldnt expect to count myself as qualified as the small selection of US/UK dons he has consulted for the program). While I understand why few other academics were willing to besmirch themselves by entering this debate, I was really disappointed in the assymmetry of the spin of the program, especially given its duration. Some of the key informants for his thesis (Rose, Jones) are well repected opponents of genetic determinism whose work I admire and accept. Yet the sloppy scholarship (even granting the shoehorning for time and visual imperatives) which avoided Darwin (the patron saint of secularism in Britain), (Darwin's cousin) Galton, Eysenck, Burt, Kamin, Jensen and especially the huge study of Erlenmeyer-Kimling and Jarvik (I know it is old stuff, like justice and Shasespeare) and the mistakes of omission (eg use of SB test for Army selection in War, Terman and Ogden's longitudal study, Zajonc's family study) and commission (eg. Lewis Terman didn't INVENT the quotient, Alfred Binet was medical not psychological etc.) tended to mire Rageh's well deserved repuation, even if he is cognitively weak on non-verbal tasks! Personally I think it would have been better not to do such a partial 'whitewash' on such a colorful topic. Scholars like myself who've spent a lifetime exploring the sciences (and indeed moral philosophy) undergirding these difficult issues tend not to ponder the bottom line on race, as it appears so confusing, if not orthogonal, as Rageh himself concluded. He (and Steve Jones) is right that we all need to confront phenotypic racism, and the social sequelae. But given the forum, I was profoundly dissapointed that I has expected so much from a journalist of such demonstrable courage, but that is my problem. I look forward to the next program in the series.

     Posted by stephen wallace on 26/10/2009 23:01:44

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
105. I would like to say first of i enjoyed your program, but feel you failed to include certian aspects of evolution. For instances if you look at the human race as we are now you would see the physical differences, that would indecate physical abilities among races and, thats not to be races, but you would find that among the black comunity they are on average more athletic. So in contrast the asian comunity are not so athletic but do seem to be more developed in the academic fields. so when you look at the two does it seem to be genetics, if you was to look at the physical profile. As i do seem to believe that the program was still abit scared to be boxed as races. Also Cognitive intelligence was used when it would have been better to use emotional intlligence to test as that is being proved as a much better way of judging the base intelligence of a person. I do know that for example we as humans have the same size brain as a dolphins but as we evolve is it races to say asians are smarter than most, I dont think so.

     Posted by Chris on 26/10/2009 22:55:37

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
106. Intelligence can be hereditary in that it can be 'learned' from our parents and other adults of influence. It wasn't that long a go that some kids were told "Don't get above your station. What you need is a steady job to help pay some of the bills around here," when a child said he wanted to be a doctor etc. Then a suggestion " You could work with your uncle, on the buses." Words of that ilk have been said to millions of black kids, hence they have seen school as just standing in the way of them getting a 'decent' job. Pleasing a posh, white, middle-class, not-in-your-world, highly paid schoolteacher, or your mum; that was the choice. This is over simplified, but essentially true. Things are changing though. Thanks for reading this.

     Posted by Dick Dastardly on 26/10/2009 22:55:21

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
107. Raheeh Omars "bombshell" that achievement may be more to do with class and environment than race really sums up what was an incredibly patronising piece of television. The chattering classes and some "right on" academics can rest easy that environment plays a huge and signifigant part in narrowing opportunity and that they are better parents than the rest of us. This really was a very poor piece of Television and the immutable law of variability makes any racist stereotyping in intelligence look ridiculous but we knew that already. I just hope Raheeh gets no where near any documentary as to why East Africans are the best distant runners and why sprinters from west African descent in Jamaica, the US, Canada and Britain are the fastest men to ever live.

     Posted by Cass on 26/10/2009 22:50:11

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
108. I was very interested in this documentary and it certainly lived up to expectations. It has posed more questions than it has answered and I thank Mr Omah for making this documentary in such a sensitive way. As a scientist myself I am wanting every question answered. I found myself wondering why this issue is and always been swept under the carpet. The reason is if the answer is if indeed there is a gap due to race, no good will ever come of knowing the answer.

     Posted by Eleanor on 26/10/2009 22:47:28

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
109. This programme uncomfortable to watch at first but also found it interesting. The one thing that baffles me is channel 4 chose to show this particular episode less than one week after the BNP's Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. I worry that showing this documentary might provide his party with extra ammunition for his race hate agenda!

     Posted by Square on 26/10/2009 22:47:25

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
110. Stimulating programme. Shame I didn't catch it all. It is interesting that we find intelligence such an emotive issue. I'd like to pitch an idea for another programme: "race and swimming ability". I feel like white people seem to do better in the pool, are their genes better suited than mine? Also sprinting, the fasted kid in school was black, and there were only 3 of them. And china, despite its dedicated search and training programme, only ever has had one track star, and I can't remember his name. What point am I trying to make? Our society, in common with a number of others, values academic performance, and rewards it. But it is just a measure of particular parts of our cognitive system. Even if a true racial difference did exist - why should we care so much? Why do we feel so much more judged when our intelligence is questioned? Even if my race, as a whole, has a lower mean IQ than someone else's - I have the right to be treated on my own merits. And even if I do have a low intelligence (assuming that is what the tests measure)- am I less valuable because of it? The terrible thing about this debate, aside from the obvious fodder it might provide for neo-nazis, is the implication that if I have low intelligence I should be upset about it. More upset than if I'm less attractive than average, or less physically able or any other multitude of qualities that probably have both heritable and environmental determinants. People are different to each other, in many different ways. The powerful groups in a society determine what qualities are considered desirable. And it will always be difficult for those without power to attain those qualities. Intelligence can be one of the keys to attaining power, but so can ruthlessness, selfishness, and nastiness in general. As a racial group in America (which may not exist genetically) there are many things black people can take pride in. If I was descended from someone who had fought oppression and prejudice, rather than perpetrated it, I’d have as much if not more pride in that than I have in my ability to do well at school! Surely those qualities should be valued as highly if not more highly than being able to solve riddles and mathematical puzzles. thats my weird rant over!

     Posted by RV on 26/10/2009 22:47:19

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
111. Not very impressed. The main theme was as expected, to take points raised by the "some races are cleverer" people and then pick each point apart. The whole point of the program was avoided as, in the end, they bottled out. Yes, the environment may well be the most significant factor by far and this may well narrow the gap or even make it totally equitable. But concepts such as the gap being made up of 95% environment and 5% genes were avoided in favour of focusing on very select points on one side and a more complex rounded explanation on the other side. The program in the end was too scared to leave any option open for there being any genetic effect at all, no matter how small or irrelevant that may have been. Instead opting for a far more comfortable and PC summary. Pretty much as expected. As far as tackling the taboo goes, you tackled nothing.

     Posted by Will on 26/10/2009 22:38:34

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
112. Hi Mr Omaar I did enjoy your piece on the race and intelligence tis night.That was a thought provoking documentary. However i am not a racist against the white but one thing the learned Profs must know is that differences in IQ is a function of one's environment to a very large extent(upper band of 90%). for example a typical black will always think of his family apart from himself;whereas a typical white thinks of himself alone.Thus he cares more for his people than concentrating on himself. Also i feel some of the IQ tests are biased.E.g the lady that asked you about the similarity between winston churhill and Truman. Why didn't she ask you about similarity between Obafemi Awolowo and Nkrumah which i am sure if you aask her she would fail the question.So IQ questions are not to be set biased it should be things that cuts across races. Well i wish you the very best in your endevours. Kayode From London

     Posted by kayode on 26/10/2009 22:36:33

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
113. Completely avoided the issue, it was apparent from the start that no conclusion regarding the difference of the intellegence of the different races would be addressed. A waste of good investigative journalism. Do'nt be afraid Channel 4 to face up to difficult issues.

     Posted by hugh on 26/10/2009 22:35:22

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
114. Omarr finishd the programme on the assumption that he disproved the theory "social and environmental reasons" when he hasn't in the slightest. The scientists disagreeing with the IQ and race camp were known leftists. Fanz Boas falsified his data-a marxist to further his ideology. The simple fact so many scientsists fear speaking on the issue shows it's a reality...Is Omaar really saying that African culture for 3000 years and more has kept the black man back? Is he really saying that? Like a black man invented something and thought, "I'm acting white" so threw it away?

     Posted by Phil on 26/10/2009 22:34:00

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
115. This was an insightful documentary, although many people of colour are aware of their intelligence and capabilities, it is refreshing to hear this out loud and acknowledged. Though a few of the "professor's/doctor's" believe that intelligence is based on race, they did not sound as if their education has benefitted them at all, however, it was quite clear that "their" environment has had an impact on their intelligence. Thanks for this wonderful programme Rageh and channel4, excellent investigative journalism and scheduling especially in the current climate.

     Posted by Kelly on 26/10/2009 22:33:55

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
116. I was very impressed tonight by how well you covered this topic. It is a complex area but none of the issues were caricaturised. Well done.

     Posted by grendel on 26/10/2009 22:30:37

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
117. Just finished watching the programme presented by Rageh Omaar. Was very good and the subject was well explored, Rageh is great at exploring these type of taboo issues and should be an inspiration to what black people can achieve, proof that a black person can be just as intelligent as one of white or Asian origin.

     Posted by Jamie on 26/10/2009 22:27:17

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
118. Race and Intelligence: These so called 'Intelligence Tests' are a wholly Western notion. They are based on a Western version of intelligence and completely disregard and discriminate cultural differences and individual learning styles. Well done Rageh Omaar for taking this topic on!

     Posted by beckybailey on 26/10/2009 22:26:01

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
119. I just want to congratulate all involved in the making of this documantary! It was incredible an dprobably the best thing I've seen on TV in a long time. I hope your hard work achieves an award. This is the first time I've ever made the effort to leave comments over a TV programme. I'm a yoga teacher and see how closed minds are and how lazy people are in not wanting to challange old ways of being and thinking! inspirational!!! Thankyou. sincerely Roisin michelle Collins

     Posted by Roisin Michelle Collins on 26/10/2009 22:23:52

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
120. I am so upset by the experts on this programme. I remember how at 15 years old we were tested as a group of black south african children for our IQ. The test used was not even standardised and I was one of the people who was secluded and told that I would never make it to university. I did graduate from university despite no efforts being made by teacher to enourage our learning. The issue about white people being more intelligent than other races is unfounded and it is still a strategy to put differences and discriminate amongst others. I know many black people who are so intelligent than white counterparts. what pains me in this issue is still transfering to work environment where white people are placed over others because of what is seemingly believed to be their capacity to perform above others. As a black south african I have seen this first hand experience in South Africa and the effects are so adverse that without my family's encouragement I would have succumbed to the messages that I was no better than any other race. Its high time we resolve this issue. No one is above or better than others. I am proud however, of the presenter who took upon himself to investigate this and show how racist some scientists can be. Thanks

     Posted by Margaret on 26/10/2009 22:22:45

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
121. Is this episode or series available on DVD?

     Posted by Kevin on 26/10/2009 22:05:50

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
122. i was sitting at home, watching this. i might not be a good student but i have other talents-i thought that it was really offencive, however it was interesting. but i thought that they could of being more subtle.

     Posted by lucy on 26/10/2009 21:42:22

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
123. A fascinating if incendiary subject - perhaps better handled by somebody a little more dispassionate?

     Posted by Rav on 26/10/2009 21:39:11

     Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment