3 ms·

I'm not sure what your definition of "nice" is, but mine doesn't include saying most of what's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_rac

by saghm 1y ago

I'm not sure what your definition of "nice" is, but mine doesn't include saying most of what's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race

flkiwi 1y ago
There was irony involved.
gaogao 1y ago
> In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". > While his hope was that everybody was equal, he added, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true". Yeah, pretty racist
- LarsDu88 1y ago
  In 2013, I sat in on one of his talks at the Salk Institute. This guy was one of the most openly racist and sexist people I've ever seen. He spent 5 minutes shitting on the former NIH head for not funding him because she was a "Hot blooded Irish woman" This is the sort of turn-of-century Mr. Burns type racism that I don't think most Americans even remember.
- lordnacho 1y ago
  I always wonder with that kind of racist explanation, how the line of reasoning goes. Suppose for the sake of argument, there's a place where everyone has 10 IQ points less, on average, than the West. The Flynn effect is about 14 points over a few decades. How do you square those things? Did the West not have a society a few decades ago? Is there some reason you can't have civilization with slightly dumber people? There was a time when kids were malnourished in the west, and possibly dumber as a result. Also, not everyone in society makes decisions. It tends to be very few people, and nobody thinks politicians are intelligent either. I've never heard an explanation of intelligence that had any actual real-world impact on a scale that matters to society. The explanation would have to have quite a lot of depth to it, as you have to come up with some sort of theory connecting how people do on a test to whatever you think makes a good society.
  - clueless 1y ago
    In a clean game-theoretic terms, without making any moral or ideological claims about “who is smarter”, we’ll treat underlying advantage as any positional asset (intelligence, wealth, charisma, skill, social capital, etc.). The question is: If a subset of players has an advantage in a repeated, large-group game, how do they best play to maximize payoff and stability? Here's the strategy chatgpt came up with (amongst many other): What Not to Say (Avoid These) Don’t describe intelligence or talent as intrinsic, innate, or permanent. This triggers resentment and identity defense. Don’t use language that signals “I am ahead of you.” Don’t use your advantage to win every interaction—save leverage for important conflicts. People tolerate talent. They hate being made aware of being lower in the hierarchy. _____ Is it possible the backlash to Watson could be viewed from this game theocratic perspective, and not that he was racist and wrong?
    - prmph 1y ago
      Hmmm, let's see. How many people died in wars in the 20th century? How many of them did NOT originate in Europe and Asia? How much of climate change that has fouled up the earth we depend is NOT attributable to economic activity in the west? Is there a western/Asian country where late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of of the common has not taken hold? I could go on... Are these evidence of intelligence? This is not a rhetorical question.
      - clueless 1y ago
        arguably I'd say wars can be generally indicative of intelligence. Higher-ability groups are more likely to choose war when their greater power raises the expected payoff of fighting. Climate change is also related to intelligence as it can argued that the more advance societies do end up consuming/producing more and thus create more Climate related waste. The end result of it might not be desirable, but probably something these advance societies can deal with. I'm not sure I understand your point around late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of the common... Are you really arguing that the western world has not been more advanced?
- peterfirefly 1y ago
  > whereas all the testing says not really This part is (still) true. Is that fact racist?
schuyler2d 1y ago
on top of that, I personally know several women scientists that had to put up with his misogyny first-hand.

by saghm 1y ago

flkiwi 1y ago

There was irony involved.

gaogao 1y ago

> In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". > While his hope was that everybody was equal, he added, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true". Yeah, pretty racist

LarsDu88 1y ago
In 2013, I sat in on one of his talks at the Salk Institute. This guy was one of the most openly racist and sexist people I've ever seen. He spent 5 minutes shitting on the former NIH head for not funding him because she was a "Hot blooded Irish woman" This is the sort of turn-of-century Mr. Burns type racism that I don't think most Americans even remember.
lordnacho 1y ago
I always wonder with that kind of racist explanation, how the line of reasoning goes. Suppose for the sake of argument, there's a place where everyone has 10 IQ points less, on average, than the West. The Flynn effect is about 14 points over a few decades. How do you square those things? Did the West not have a society a few decades ago? Is there some reason you can't have civilization with slightly dumber people? There was a time when kids were malnourished in the west, and possibly dumber as a result. Also, not everyone in society makes decisions. It tends to be very few people, and nobody thinks politicians are intelligent either. I've never heard an explanation of intelligence that had any actual real-world impact on a scale that matters to society. The explanation would have to have quite a lot of depth to it, as you have to come up with some sort of theory connecting how people do on a test to whatever you think makes a good society.
- clueless 1y ago
  In a clean game-theoretic terms, without making any moral or ideological claims about “who is smarter”, we’ll treat underlying advantage as any positional asset (intelligence, wealth, charisma, skill, social capital, etc.). The question is: If a subset of players has an advantage in a repeated, large-group game, how do they best play to maximize payoff and stability? Here's the strategy chatgpt came up with (amongst many other): What Not to Say (Avoid These) Don’t describe intelligence or talent as intrinsic, innate, or permanent. This triggers resentment and identity defense. Don’t use language that signals “I am ahead of you.” Don’t use your advantage to win every interaction—save leverage for important conflicts. People tolerate talent. They hate being made aware of being lower in the hierarchy. _____ Is it possible the backlash to Watson could be viewed from this game theocratic perspective, and not that he was racist and wrong?
  - prmph 1y ago
    Hmmm, let's see. How many people died in wars in the 20th century? How many of them did NOT originate in Europe and Asia? How much of climate change that has fouled up the earth we depend is NOT attributable to economic activity in the west? Is there a western/Asian country where late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of of the common has not taken hold? I could go on... Are these evidence of intelligence? This is not a rhetorical question.
    - clueless 1y ago
      arguably I'd say wars can be generally indicative of intelligence. Higher-ability groups are more likely to choose war when their greater power raises the expected payoff of fighting. Climate change is also related to intelligence as it can argued that the more advance societies do end up consuming/producing more and thus create more Climate related waste. The end result of it might not be desirable, but probably something these advance societies can deal with. I'm not sure I understand your point around late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of the common... Are you really arguing that the western world has not been more advanced?
peterfirefly 1y ago
> whereas all the testing says not really This part is (still) true. Is that fact racist?

schuyler2d 1y ago

on top of that, I personally know several women scientists that had to put up with his misogyny first-hand.