7 ms·

DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race

24 points by milkcircle 8y ago

eorge_g 8y ago
He relies on IQ tests for the basis of his beliefs and I have to side with Taleb on that one: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
- FakeComments 8y ago
  That essay argues that IQ isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict life success, only lack of success. That is nonsense equivalent to arguing height isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict NBA success, only lack of success. IQ seems to be one of the best psychological measures we have, and Mr Taleb himself verifies that — if it weren’t, it wouldn’t exclude so strongly at the low end.
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    I think he's got a point, actually. If someone is short, they are very, very unlikely to join an NBA team. But if they're tall, you don't know much. All this is saying is that if someone is missing a necessary ingredient to do something, they can't do it. If they have it, some other ingredient becomes limiting. Or noise drowns out any predictive signal. It connects nicely with the threshold theory of IQ, basically if you're above some baseline, that's opens up certain possibilities for you. But having loads and loads of IQ doesn't help much. This is probably a mechanic that works in many areas. Some test will exclude people very well, but not choose "the good ones" well at all.
    - FakeComments 8y ago
      That has nothing to do with a measure: whether or not IQ accurately measures intelligence is independent of whether it’s predictive of success. We all know NBA success requires more than height, however, height is still a measurement — not of total value in a person (even in regards to just basketball), but still of a real and objective difference between people. Similarly, IQ doesn’t predict success, but is measuring a real and objective difference between people. Mr Taleb seems to confuse “cant predict a multi-factor outcome alone” with “isn’t measuring anything objective”. Again, IQ isn’t a measure of a persons value (or success) — just of a genuine variance in people’s mental abilities. Mr Taleb unfortunately tries to extend the point that there’s more to success than raw intelligence to some kind of misplaced attack on the notion of measuring intelligence. That argument is as nonsense as insisting I can’t measure height, because not every tall person plays in the NBA.
someone454 8y ago
Prove him wrong, doing it this way only proves that people are irrational in the face of criticism
- cududa 8y ago
  Well he falsified his data, so he kind of proved himself wrong
- 13415 8y ago
  “Dr Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students. The laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.” Basically, the whole faculty thinks he's wrong, and Watson has presented no evidence for his claims. He's not even an expert on the subject matter.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  "the abominable snow man is real" Prove me wrong.
didgeoridoo 8y ago
Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be related to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Maybe because IQ is the result of a huge number of interacting genetic factors, and is thus unlikely to experience substantial drift over the existence of the human species? That would differentiate it from e.g. melanin production or lactose tolerance, which are heavily determined by only a few genes, and thus more likely to respond to selective pressure.
- 13415 8y ago
  > Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be unrelated to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Certainly not, but AFAIK phenotypical "race" - like the one when you distinguish between "black" and "white" "races" - plays no role in modern genetics.
  - throwaway98621 8y ago
    Once you control for IQ, race has no correlation with IQ.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  We know that intelligence has a strong genetic component, though. [0] It seems strange to me to suppose a strongly heritable trait would be uncorrelated by “race” — while numerous other traits are. It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen anything to support that conjecture, which certainly isn’t the minimal assumption. The minimal assumption would be heritable traits have a racial correlation — since that’s generally what we find to be the case. Further, there seems to be an incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic, likely because it conflicts with ideological (rather than scientific) positions. (As an aside, “race” isn’t necessarily well defined — but we have a good enough idea to, eg, discuss lactose tolerance or certain disease prevalence.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
  - eesmith 8y ago
throwaway98621 8y ago
Watson should learn from Galileo and apologize. You can't challenge any social taboos or else you will face social ostracism -the modern day death penalty-.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mishurov 8y ago
Totalitarian leftist witch hunt in action.
pmdulaney 8y ago
Would he have had his honors stripped if he had claimed that women have better verbal skills than men?
- eesmith 8y ago
  This sounds like axe grinding rather than any serious commentary. I mean, I can think many other things you could have mentioned: would he have had his honors stripped if he had a long record of drunk-driving? If he were a pedophile? If his secret espionage for the Soviets was finally revealed? And so on. Addressing your topic point on, Watson has a decades long history of making racist, sexist, misogynist, and similar comments - and often justified by pseudo-science. When it was mostly white men who dominated the field, it was regarded as "that's just Jim being Jim." In 2007 he apologized for his behavior and retracted his statements like 'He also said that while he wished the races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”' His recent statements on PBS effectively cancel that retraction. By comparison, if his only comment along these lines had been that men have better verbal skills than women, then it's extremely unlikely he would have had his honors stripped. Which means I also think that if he had claimed the opposite - that women have better verbal skills than men - then I also doubt that he would have had his honors stripped. Do you know of any similar case where a man was stripped of honors solely because he said that he thought men have better verbal skills than women? Or that he thought men had better physical perception than women? Off-hand I can't think of any, so I can't see why the reverse would be any different.
  - pmdulaney 8y ago
    Well, I don't think that anyone believes that men, in general, have better verbal skills than women. But there was a guy at Google who got in trouble for saying that men, in general, have better STEM skills than women. Axe grinding? I suppose. But I too hold Watson's views to be highly distasteful. But I think it is important to balance that sense of repugnance with two principles: 1) Free speech; and 2) the idea that if something is actually true -- and I'm not asserting that Watson has captured the truth here -- then there must not be a penalty for saying it, if it is said in a non-inflammatory way. And you do raise an excellent question: Would Watson's honors have been stripped if it were proved that he had been a Soviet spy?

24 points by milkcircle 8y ago

He relies on IQ tests for the basis of his beliefs and I have to side with Taleb on that one: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39 https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...

FakeComments 8y ago
That essay argues that IQ isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict life success, only lack of success. That is nonsense equivalent to arguing height isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict NBA success, only lack of success. IQ seems to be one of the best psychological measures we have, and Mr Taleb himself verifies that — if it weren’t, it wouldn’t exclude so strongly at the low end.
- lordnacho 8y ago
  I think he's got a point, actually. If someone is short, they are very, very unlikely to join an NBA team. But if they're tall, you don't know much. All this is saying is that if someone is missing a necessary ingredient to do something, they can't do it. If they have it, some other ingredient becomes limiting. Or noise drowns out any predictive signal. It connects nicely with the threshold theory of IQ, basically if you're above some baseline, that's opens up certain possibilities for you. But having loads and loads of IQ doesn't help much. This is probably a mechanic that works in many areas. Some test will exclude people very well, but not choose "the good ones" well at all.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    That has nothing to do with a measure: whether or not IQ accurately measures intelligence is independent of whether it’s predictive of success. We all know NBA success requires more than height, however, height is still a measurement — not of total value in a person (even in regards to just basketball), but still of a real and objective difference between people. Similarly, IQ doesn’t predict success, but is measuring a real and objective difference between people. Mr Taleb seems to confuse “cant predict a multi-factor outcome alone” with “isn’t measuring anything objective”. Again, IQ isn’t a measure of a persons value (or success) — just of a genuine variance in people’s mental abilities. Mr Taleb unfortunately tries to extend the point that there’s more to success than raw intelligence to some kind of misplaced attack on the notion of measuring intelligence. That argument is as nonsense as insisting I can’t measure height, because not every tall person plays in the NBA.

someone454 8y ago

Prove him wrong, doing it this way only proves that people are irrational in the face of criticism

cududa 8y ago
Well he falsified his data, so he kind of proved himself wrong
13415 8y ago
“Dr Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students. The laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.” Basically, the whole faculty thinks he's wrong, and Watson has presented no evidence for his claims. He's not even an expert on the subject matter.
EpicEng 8y ago
"the abominable snow man is real" Prove me wrong.

didgeoridoo 8y ago

Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be related to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Maybe because IQ is the result of a huge number of interacting genetic factors, and is thus unlikely to experience substantial drift over the existence of the human species? That would differentiate it from e.g. melanin production or lactose tolerance, which are heavily determined by only a few genes, and thus more likely to respond to selective pressure.

13415 8y ago
> Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be unrelated to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Certainly not, but AFAIK phenotypical "race" - like the one when you distinguish between "black" and "white" "races" - plays no role in modern genetics.
- throwaway98621 8y ago
  Once you control for IQ, race has no correlation with IQ.
FakeComments 8y ago
We know that intelligence has a strong genetic component, though. [0] It seems strange to me to suppose a strongly heritable trait would be uncorrelated by “race” — while numerous other traits are. It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen anything to support that conjecture, which certainly isn’t the minimal assumption. The minimal assumption would be heritable traits have a racial correlation — since that’s generally what we find to be the case. Further, there seems to be an incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic, likely because it conflicts with ideological (rather than scientific) positions. (As an aside, “race” isn’t necessarily well defined — but we have a good enough idea to, eg, discuss lactose tolerance or certain disease prevalence.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
- eesmith 8y ago

throwaway98621 8y ago

Watson should learn from Galileo and apologize. You can't challenge any social taboos or else you will face social ostracism -the modern day death penalty-.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mishurov 8y ago

Totalitarian leftist witch hunt in action.

pmdulaney 8y ago

Would he have had his honors stripped if he had claimed that women have better verbal skills than men?

eesmith 8y ago
This sounds like axe grinding rather than any serious commentary. I mean, I can think many other things you could have mentioned: would he have had his honors stripped if he had a long record of drunk-driving? If he were a pedophile? If his secret espionage for the Soviets was finally revealed? And so on. Addressing your topic point on, Watson has a decades long history of making racist, sexist, misogynist, and similar comments - and often justified by pseudo-science. When it was mostly white men who dominated the field, it was regarded as "that's just Jim being Jim." In 2007 he apologized for his behavior and retracted his statements like 'He also said that while he wished the races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”' His recent statements on PBS effectively cancel that retraction. By comparison, if his only comment along these lines had been that men have better verbal skills than women, then it's extremely unlikely he would have had his honors stripped. Which means I also think that if he had claimed the opposite - that women have better verbal skills than men - then I also doubt that he would have had his honors stripped. Do you know of any similar case where a man was stripped of honors solely because he said that he thought men have better verbal skills than women? Or that he thought men had better physical perception than women? Off-hand I can't think of any, so I can't see why the reverse would be any different.
- pmdulaney 8y ago
  Well, I don't think that anyone believes that men, in general, have better verbal skills than women. But there was a guy at Google who got in trouble for saying that men, in general, have better STEM skills than women. Axe grinding? I suppose. But I too hold Watson's views to be highly distasteful. But I think it is important to balance that sense of repugnance with two principles: 1) Free speech; and 2) the idea that if something is actually true -- and I'm not asserting that Watson has captured the truth here -- then there must not be a penalty for saying it, if it is said in a non-inflammatory way. And you do raise an excellent question: Would Watson's honors have been stripped if it were proved that he had been a Soviet spy?