5 ms·

One problem is that tenure and standing for established scientists no longer afford any of the expected protections. James Watson was not discredited but prompt

One problem is that tenure and standing for established scientists no longer afford any of the expected protections. James Watson was not discredited but promptly fired and "disgraced" for stating a well-supported scientific finding in abrupt layman's terms for an interview. The minds of cancel culture would probably say they gave this dinosaur enough chances to fade away, but he wouldn't. If they do want scientists to be free to investigate the genetic and other bases of IQ further in order to find better answers, then it seems like they want scientists to first find a way to talk about it publicly without specifying the categories or where members of a category tend to fall on the scale. There is a chilling effect on various lines of inquiry. For now, you can claim the information is out there, but any further writings could become more esoteric or limited. In the case of IQ, I don't think certain people want scientific answers as to why. They would rather assume IQ is highly malleable while they run social and economic experiments to find ways to equalize it and other factors that predict success.

stenl 7y ago
James Watson - who was as close to royalty as you can get in science - worked very long and hard to get himself fired. It wasn’t just ”an interview”, but a lifetime of racism and sexism. Lior Pachter has a handy collection of quotes with links to sources: https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/ https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in...
- l0000p 7y ago
  But you're just assuming that he is wrong based on your own presumptions without any actual knowledge about the subject. The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. This is exactly the problem of cancel culture. Just because he points out something you don't like you're suddenly an expert and somehow think he is now wrong. What about double helix? Is he wrong about that too? Based on what? Why don't you have an opinion about that? Because you don't care? Even though your ability to judge the correctness of this research is the same as the race-related studies.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. It doesn't really matter either way when you're pushing your opinions and anecdotal opinions as fact. > What about double helix? Is he wrong about that too? Based on what? Why don't you have an opinion about that? Because you don't care? Even though your ability to judge the correctness of this research is the same as the race-related studies. How exactly is this relevant?
    - l0000p 7y ago
      So somehow, without any deep knowledge of any of these subjects, you're able to determine that one statement is correct and the other is not. I'm doubting that this is based on anything else than emotions.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > So somehow, without any deep knowledge of any of these subjects On what basis do you make this assumption?
        l0000p 7y ago
        Great, show me your Nobel price in a relevant field and proof of 20 years of research expertise at Harvard and I'll take your opinion serious.
  - nl 7y ago
    The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. Lior Pachter (who that link was from) is a Professor of Computational Biology at CalTech. His other post about Watson is good too: https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-perfect-human-is-puerto-rican/ https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-perfect-hum... But you don't need to steal a Nobel prize to recognise racism. And yes, "scientific" racism is wrong as in incorrect, as any honest search will show.
- fishnchips 7y ago
  Wow, I never realized the extent of it!
- anglercut 7y ago
  Well, let's just pick one example of a supposedly absolutely reprehensible and wrong statement in that collection. > “The one aspect of the Jewish brain that is not first class is that Jews are said to be bad in thinking in three dimensions.. it is true” – Watson > Sorry but these are racist and misogynist in a direct way. In what high school were you taught to read deliberations about Jewish brains as “rude comments about people in general”. That would also explain your curious view on what biology is. – some busybody > Different studies have found different results, but most have found well above-average verbal and mathematical intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, along with slightly below-average spatial intelligence,[2][3] producing an average IQ score in the range of roughly 107 to 115, well above the general mean of 100.[4][5][6][7] – Wikipedia* He was supremely politically incorrect and unconcerned with how his views might be misrepresented. However, here we see that he was factually correct (inasmuch as intelligence is function of the brain) and, also, simply expessing mainstream scientific views. To someone who is not yet a true believer, you are only further confirming that his cancellation was part of general ideological assault on science. He "worked very long and hard to get himself fired" by saying things he as someone who respects and understands science believed. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    Slightly below average is not bad. The median Ashkenazi Jew is not all Jews. Watson implied the difference is innate. Wikipedia does not.
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  I read the quotes in the links. None of that to me constitutes as 'racism' and 'sexism' as commonly defined. They are just plain observations which incidentally resonates with my own observations. Of course your average person out there will construe all his statements as being racist and sexist. You could argue that some of his statements are bad jokes, but that is subjective. To quote the guy 'rob' who made the comment on June 4, 2018 at 5:22 am : ------------------------------------------ Is he an old man? Yes. Does he not know when to keep his mouth shut? Yes. Are some of his views outdated? Yes. Get over it. 90% of the planet is as bad as him, if not worse. And 90% of your views will be outdated too in 20 years. This never-ending desire of "the left" (which includes most of academia) to feel offended is far more damaging than the ramblings of an old man. ------------------------------------------
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    You mean to tell me an old man who grew up in even more racist and sexist societies, making racist and sexist "jokes", is not racist because he is old and this used to be normal? We all know plenty of old racist men like this. Hell, some of the more civilized (your definition of "left") people may have acted like this as children or young adults. Some of us also know better men than this. Better ones who find most of that page pretty despicable in any context. Are you stating what it seems you are -- that the better ones are wrong because they do not observe the these things that resonate with you? I think you should seriously re-evaluate your observations if half of those quotes are things you hold true, let alone all of them. Also, why don't you spend some time to expand on rob's comment. What _about_ his views is so outdated? What _about_ him being old makes him hold those views and "open his mouth" to express them? See, many on the planet are over him and his kind. We thank him for his contribution, but it's time he got off the stage. There's hardly room for 90% of the planet on it. Perhaps the people who worship the egos of "outdated" and "bad" "old" people lacking in self control should recognize the fact that they worship the weakness of, in your commenters words, the bottom 10th percentile of people.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  I don't really trust the selective quoting of that blog, e.g: quote: “Some anti-Semitism is justified” full quote: “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark? Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.” They pounced on the unfortunate and/or unusual use of the word "justified", where the full context makes it clear he's talking about what you should be allowed to say, not what is correct. He means its existence in public discourse is "justified".
deogeo 7y ago
> If they do want scientists to be free to investigate the genetic and other bases of IQ further in order to find better answers It's quite obvious they don't want that, so they can continue to stretch the remaining gaps in knowledge enough to fit the entire blank slate hypothesis inside.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> James Watson was not discredited but promptly fired and "disgraced" for stating a well-supported scientific finding in abrupt layman's terms for an interview. Even Watson admitted, before being fired, that the last straw that did that wasn't a well-supported scientific finding. > In the case of IQ, I don't think certain people want scientific answers as to why The people that don't want the answers as to why are the people that are busy trumpeting any reported finding of correlation that fits their political narrative, no matter how thinly supported, and insisting that it must be an inherent racial difference. The rest of the world is very much interested in both testing the correlations and seeking causal explanations.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051823. The race IQ war is never going to go anyplace good for this site, and it attracts hard-core ideologues who proceed to do hard-core ideological battle, which is off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- neekleer 7y ago
  Of course, the parent comment to mine broached the subject. I guess that person's statement should stand, and there will be no way to address it.
  - dang 7y ago
    We moderate not so much by comment as by subthread. That wasn't the only thing the parent was talking about, and there was at least one other subthread in reply that wasn't as bad. This one, however, definitely went way into classic flamewar hell. Nothing about this is going to get resolved on HN, only talking points thrown back and forth by the already-dedicated, while everyone else tunes out.

stenl 7y ago

James Watson - who was as close to royalty as you can get in science - worked very long and hard to get himself fired. It wasn’t just ”an interview”, but a lifetime of racism and sexism. Lior Pachter has a handy collection of quotes with links to sources: https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/ https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in...

l0000p 7y ago
But you're just assuming that he is wrong based on your own presumptions without any actual knowledge about the subject. The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. This is exactly the problem of cancel culture. Just because he points out something you don't like you're suddenly an expert and somehow think he is now wrong. What about double helix? Is he wrong about that too? Based on what? Why don't you have an opinion about that? Because you don't care? Even though your ability to judge the correctness of this research is the same as the race-related studies.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. It doesn't really matter either way when you're pushing your opinions and anecdotal opinions as fact. > What about double helix? Is he wrong about that too? Based on what? Why don't you have an opinion about that? Because you don't care? Even though your ability to judge the correctness of this research is the same as the race-related studies. How exactly is this relevant?
  - l0000p 7y ago
    So somehow, without any deep knowledge of any of these subjects, you're able to determine that one statement is correct and the other is not. I'm doubting that this is based on anything else than emotions.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > So somehow, without any deep knowledge of any of these subjects On what basis do you make this assumption?
      - l0000p 7y ago
        Great, show me your Nobel price in a relevant field and proof of 20 years of research expertise at Harvard and I'll take your opinion serious.
- nl 7y ago
  The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. Lior Pachter (who that link was from) is a Professor of Computational Biology at CalTech. His other post about Watson is good too: https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-perfect-human-is-puerto-rican/ https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-perfect-hum... But you don't need to steal a Nobel prize to recognise racism. And yes, "scientific" racism is wrong as in incorrect, as any honest search will show.
fishnchips 7y ago
Wow, I never realized the extent of it!
anglercut 7y ago
Well, let's just pick one example of a supposedly absolutely reprehensible and wrong statement in that collection. > “The one aspect of the Jewish brain that is not first class is that Jews are said to be bad in thinking in three dimensions.. it is true” – Watson > Sorry but these are racist and misogynist in a direct way. In what high school were you taught to read deliberations about Jewish brains as “rude comments about people in general”. That would also explain your curious view on what biology is. – some busybody > Different studies have found different results, but most have found well above-average verbal and mathematical intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, along with slightly below-average spatial intelligence,[2][3] producing an average IQ score in the range of roughly 107 to 115, well above the general mean of 100.[4][5][6][7] – Wikipedia* He was supremely politically incorrect and unconcerned with how his views might be misrepresented. However, here we see that he was factually correct (inasmuch as intelligence is function of the brain) and, also, simply expessing mainstream scientific views. To someone who is not yet a true believer, you are only further confirming that his cancellation was part of general ideological assault on science. He "worked very long and hard to get himself fired" by saying things he as someone who respects and understands science believed. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  Slightly below average is not bad. The median Ashkenazi Jew is not all Jews. Watson implied the difference is innate. Wikipedia does not.
dennis_jeeves 7y ago
I read the quotes in the links. None of that to me constitutes as 'racism' and 'sexism' as commonly defined. They are just plain observations which incidentally resonates with my own observations. Of course your average person out there will construe all his statements as being racist and sexist. You could argue that some of his statements are bad jokes, but that is subjective. To quote the guy 'rob' who made the comment on June 4, 2018 at 5:22 am : ------------------------------------------ Is he an old man? Yes. Does he not know when to keep his mouth shut? Yes. Are some of his views outdated? Yes. Get over it. 90% of the planet is as bad as him, if not worse. And 90% of your views will be outdated too in 20 years. This never-ending desire of "the left" (which includes most of academia) to feel offended is far more damaging than the ramblings of an old man. ------------------------------------------
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  You mean to tell me an old man who grew up in even more racist and sexist societies, making racist and sexist "jokes", is not racist because he is old and this used to be normal? We all know plenty of old racist men like this. Hell, some of the more civilized (your definition of "left") people may have acted like this as children or young adults. Some of us also know better men than this. Better ones who find most of that page pretty despicable in any context. Are you stating what it seems you are -- that the better ones are wrong because they do not observe the these things that resonate with you? I think you should seriously re-evaluate your observations if half of those quotes are things you hold true, let alone all of them. Also, why don't you spend some time to expand on rob's comment. What _about_ his views is so outdated? What _about_ him being old makes him hold those views and "open his mouth" to express them? See, many on the planet are over him and his kind. We thank him for his contribution, but it's time he got off the stage. There's hardly room for 90% of the planet on it. Perhaps the people who worship the egos of "outdated" and "bad" "old" people lacking in self control should recognize the fact that they worship the weakness of, in your commenters words, the bottom 10th percentile of people.
Chris2048 7y ago
I don't really trust the selective quoting of that blog, e.g: quote: “Some anti-Semitism is justified” full quote: “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark? Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.” They pounced on the unfortunate and/or unusual use of the word "justified", where the full context makes it clear he's talking about what you should be allowed to say, not what is correct. He means its existence in public discourse is "justified".

deogeo 7y ago

> If they do want scientists to be free to investigate the genetic and other bases of IQ further in order to find better answers It's quite obvious they don't want that, so they can continue to stretch the remaining gaps in knowledge enough to fit the entire blank slate hypothesis inside.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> James Watson was not discredited but promptly fired and "disgraced" for stating a well-supported scientific finding in abrupt layman's terms for an interview. Even Watson admitted, before being fired, that the last straw that did that wasn't a well-supported scientific finding. > In the case of IQ, I don't think certain people want scientific answers as to why The people that don't want the answers as to why are the people that are busy trumpeting any reported finding of correlation that fits their political narrative, no matter how thinly supported, and insisting that it must be an inherent racial difference. The rest of the world is very much interested in both testing the correlations and seeking causal explanations.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051823. The race IQ war is never going to go anyplace good for this site, and it attracts hard-core ideologues who proceed to do hard-core ideological battle, which is off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

neekleer 7y ago
Of course, the parent comment to mine broached the subject. I guess that person's statement should stand, and there will be no way to address it.
- dang 7y ago
  We moderate not so much by comment as by subthread. That wasn't the only thing the parent was talking about, and there was at least one other subthread in reply that wasn't as bad. This one, however, definitely went way into classic flamewar hell. Nothing about this is going to get resolved on HN, only talking points thrown back and forth by the already-dedicated, while everyone else tunes out.