4 ms·

This was not "disinterested objective investigation", it was ranting from a bigot. He's also said (among other things) that he won't hire fat people, and that w

by coke12 12y ago

This was not "disinterested objective investigation", it was ranting from a bigot. He's also said (among other things) that he won't hire fat people, and that women aren't as good as men at science. I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about.

pervycreeper 12y ago
I am condemning the reaction to the comments, not defending those comments themselves (which I have not investigated thoroughly). >I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about. I agree with this point (and would go further by removing the celebrity condition), and it is probably applicable to Watson, just as it is to most who condemn him.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  > I am condemning the reaction to the comments Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? (This was the reaction to his comments.) I mean, leaving aside the legal issues of having someone in a management position saying something like that. Morally, you feel that this is wrong?
  - pervycreeper 12y ago
    >Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate, depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math" instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in this instance, it would require a great deal of interpretation to get a legitimate expression of bigotry out of his initial remarks. He was punished not for prejudice, but for breaking a social taboo. Same analysis applies to Shirtgate and Larry Summers on sex differences.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      > No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your properly. Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic difference in intelligence, as far as we can tell. It might be different if the data actually backed up what he said, but as far as I can tell, it was simple racist ranting. Nobody was punished for shirtgate. A guy apologized for doing something wrong. Everyone forgave him. The end.
      - pervycreeper 12y ago
        >Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? well, using this quote as a source (can't find the original): >He says that he is “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” This is more of an off-the-cuff, vague, and poorly considered comment. So, no. However, it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scrutiny (compared to the stupid and incorrect things said all the time by other scientists), most often from people who are equally unqualified to comment. Also notable is the assumption on the part of critics who assumed he stated the basis for the difference is genetic, which he did not in fact say. >Nobody was punished for shirtgate He was bullied to tears by a giant internet hate mob telling him he was a bad person on one of the most significant days in his career, all for his choice of apparel. The same people, I might add, who advocate internet censorship in order to curb "harassment".

by coke12 12y ago

pervycreeper 12y ago

I am condemning the reaction to the comments, not defending those comments themselves (which I have not investigated thoroughly). >I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about. I agree with this point (and would go further by removing the celebrity condition), and it is probably applicable to Watson, just as it is to most who condemn him.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
> I am condemning the reaction to the comments Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? (This was the reaction to his comments.) I mean, leaving aside the legal issues of having someone in a management position saying something like that. Morally, you feel that this is wrong?
- pervycreeper 12y ago
  >Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate, depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math" instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in this instance, it would require a great deal of interpretation to get a legitimate expression of bigotry out of his initial remarks. He was punished not for prejudice, but for breaking a social taboo. Same analysis applies to Shirtgate and Larry Summers on sex differences.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    > No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your properly. Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic difference in intelligence, as far as we can tell. It might be different if the data actually backed up what he said, but as far as I can tell, it was simple racist ranting. Nobody was punished for shirtgate. A guy apologized for doing something wrong. Everyone forgave him. The end.
    - pervycreeper 12y ago
      >Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? well, using this quote as a source (can't find the original): >He says that he is “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” This is more of an off-the-cuff, vague, and poorly considered comment. So, no. However, it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scrutiny (compared to the stupid and incorrect things said all the time by other scientists), most often from people who are equally unqualified to comment. Also notable is the assumption on the part of critics who assumed he stated the basis for the difference is genetic, which he did not in fact say. >Nobody was punished for shirtgate He was bullied to tears by a giant internet hate mob telling him he was a bad person on one of the most significant days in his career, all for his choice of apparel. The same people, I might add, who advocate internet censorship in order to curb "harassment".