"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” He further said that while we may wish intelligence to be equal across races, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

That is what he said. He did not say "don't hire blacks". He is right about what the testing shows.

That is a hilarious citation.

Why is it hilarious? It's interesting, but I didn't find it particularly funny.

And it actually backs-up my point about "stats".

I missed the part where you made a point about "stats". Would you please restate what that point was?

Sure, if you conflate 'productivity' with 'publishing papers' your "stats" are correct, right? So I guess we can use the same link to say women are more 'productive' if I move the measure of productivity to being cited more!

Nobody is "moving" the measure of productivity, those are two clearly different measures. One is numbers of papers published by an author, and the other is number of times papers written by a given author is cited.

On average females scientists publish 50% the amount of scientific papers as men do. Their papers are 1.5 times as likely to be cited. So that would still mean that a female scientist is only 75% (.5 x 1.5 = .75) as likely to be cited as a male scientist, since the volume of their output is lower on average.

So James Watson wasn't necessarily wrong in suggesting than male scientists are more effective, but it's not really a useful argument to have unless you're intent on bending his statement to use for the purposes of character assassination.

The point is he's never said anything that's flat out wrong, he's just said a few things that make people uncomfortable or offend their sensibilities. Since science is about the objective pursuit of the truth, those people aren't worth dealing with. As James Watson titled his book, "Avoid Boring People".