6 ms·

Why he is a jerk? it's his rights to decide what to do with that medal. isn't it? Why people are criticizing him is out of my head. People also call him racist

Why he is a jerk? it's his rights to decide what to do with that medal. isn't it? Why people are criticizing him is out of my head. People also call him racist because of his another discovery. I mean let him do whatever he wants to do with that. Will a medal going to carry away whatever he does for the science?

jjoonathan 12y ago
He established his reputation as a jerk independently of selling the medal. Here are some quotes: > [I am] 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. He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. We're not just bashing someone for speaking a politically unpopular truth here (I cynically suspect that we would do just that were Watson's position correct, but fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case). > Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them > [the] historic curse of the Irish, which is not alcohol, it's not stupidity. But it's ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies Also, he's selling the medal with the specific intent of thumbing his nose at the scientific community. He would draw much more sympathy if he had fallen on hard times due to misfortune, for instance.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Without endorsing his other comments, I think his comment on the Irish is entirely reasonable. I'm Irish, BTW. He later clarified these remarks somewhat; it seems his main cone of contention with the Irish person who inspired him to make the original remark was her enthusiastic support for gene patents, which he considered to be lunacy. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions-over-watsons-irish-dumb-ramblings-229896.html http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions...
- outis 12y ago
  > He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. I would be grateful if you could go into some more detail about this. There have been articles on HN recently that made a strong case for the genetic basis of IQ and for its validity as a measure of intelligence. It's also easy to find data about the average measured IQ in different racial groups. But there are also a variety of arguments that weaken or strengthen the case, from the Flynn effect to studies on twins, adopted children, etc. It seems to me that the issue is muddled, at best. If there is a slam-dunk argument that can finally bury the notion of intelligence differences between races, I'd like to see it articulated. Disclaimer: I do not belong to the race with the highest supposed IQ, and I have never taken an IQ test myself, so I really have no horse in this race. Also, even if racial differences in intelligence were real, individual differences would still be more important, and it would remain unacceptable to make assumptions about someone's intelligence based on their race.
- shamney 12y ago
  Why is he "flat out wrong" about the testing? African intelligence scores are much lower.
  - shamney 12y ago
    why would someone downvote this? I'm simply pointing out facts. For example, see this paper by Wicherts et al [1]: "Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82." [1]http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
    - seekingtruth 12y ago
      I'm getting downvoted for linking to Wikipedia. Facts don't matter on this topic.
      - shamney 12y ago
        the downvotes are quite amazing. this is just a basic factual matter -- nothing to do with whether watson's broader claims are true -- yet it seems some people are simply incapable of dealing with reality...
        whorace 12y ago
        The same people who decry creationists as ignorant insist that evolution only works from the neck down.
cal2 12y ago
Not to mention that it is essentially Franklin's medal anyway...
aikah 12y ago
The guy is racist period.What he says is racist,no matter how talented he is.There is no excuse for what he says ,especially as a scientist. I'm black.to suggest that my intelligence is linked to the color of my skin is ridiculous. And never forget that a whole bunch of white-supremacists out there are using his credentials to justify whatever violent ideology they promote,and these people don't just talk,they harass,beat and kill non white people because they consider other "races" as subhumans.Words have consequences.
- seekingtruth 12y ago
  That something someone says makes you feel bad or is used by others to justify ideas or actions you find loathsome does not make that person or what he said wrong. Your skin color and height are highly heritable attributes and it is by no means an outrageous assertion to state that intelligence is as well. Some estimates for heritability of intelligence are as high as 0.8. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of...
  - aikah 12y ago
    Not going to discuss with a a throwaway account. You can go back to /r/greatapes and have fun with your racist pals.
    - seekingtruth 12y ago
      There is never anything to discuss with people who would rather close their eyes and ears and call others names than bother to read discomforting information.
    - tomp 12y ago
      Using throwaway accounts makes sense for discussing controversial topics that people could use to e.g. damage your career.
  - tinco 12y ago
    It's irrelevant whether intelligence is an inheritable trait or not. You can not say 'all Asians are short' nor 'all Africans are black' as they simply aren't all, nor does the precise number or accuracy give you indication about the traits of any single person. Watson is under the blatantly false impression that his statement have statistical merit when they clearly don't. He was simply wrong and should not have spoken about a field clearly outside his expertise. The interpretation of the adoption research in the article you linked is particularly infuriating as there is only one thing clearly dominating in the results, the upbringing of the child which accounts for a full 10 points, a number that would seem to point to an almost irrelevance of any genetic predisposition let alone one correlated with prehistoric ancestry, those 3 points could come from literally any uncontrolled for other environmental influence.

jjoonathan 12y ago

He established his reputation as a jerk independently of selling the medal. Here are some quotes: > [I am] 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. He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. We're not just bashing someone for speaking a politically unpopular truth here (I cynically suspect that we would do just that were Watson's position correct, but fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case). > Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them > [the] historic curse of the Irish, which is not alcohol, it's not stupidity. But it's ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies Also, he's selling the medal with the specific intent of thumbing his nose at the scientific community. He would draw much more sympathy if he had fallen on hard times due to misfortune, for instance.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Without endorsing his other comments, I think his comment on the Irish is entirely reasonable. I'm Irish, BTW. He later clarified these remarks somewhat; it seems his main cone of contention with the Irish person who inspired him to make the original remark was her enthusiastic support for gene patents, which he considered to be lunacy. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions-over-watsons-irish-dumb-ramblings-229896.html http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions...
outis 12y ago
> He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. I would be grateful if you could go into some more detail about this. There have been articles on HN recently that made a strong case for the genetic basis of IQ and for its validity as a measure of intelligence. It's also easy to find data about the average measured IQ in different racial groups. But there are also a variety of arguments that weaken or strengthen the case, from the Flynn effect to studies on twins, adopted children, etc. It seems to me that the issue is muddled, at best. If there is a slam-dunk argument that can finally bury the notion of intelligence differences between races, I'd like to see it articulated. Disclaimer: I do not belong to the race with the highest supposed IQ, and I have never taken an IQ test myself, so I really have no horse in this race. Also, even if racial differences in intelligence were real, individual differences would still be more important, and it would remain unacceptable to make assumptions about someone's intelligence based on their race.
shamney 12y ago
Why is he "flat out wrong" about the testing? African intelligence scores are much lower.
- shamney 12y ago
  why would someone downvote this? I'm simply pointing out facts. For example, see this paper by Wicherts et al [1]: "Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82." [1]http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
  - seekingtruth 12y ago
    I'm getting downvoted for linking to Wikipedia. Facts don't matter on this topic.
    - shamney 12y ago
      the downvotes are quite amazing. this is just a basic factual matter -- nothing to do with whether watson's broader claims are true -- yet it seems some people are simply incapable of dealing with reality...
      - whorace 12y ago
        The same people who decry creationists as ignorant insist that evolution only works from the neck down.

cal2 12y ago

Not to mention that it is essentially Franklin's medal anyway...

aikah 12y ago

The guy is racist period.What he says is racist,no matter how talented he is.There is no excuse for what he says ,especially as a scientist. I'm black.to suggest that my intelligence is linked to the color of my skin is ridiculous. And never forget that a whole bunch of white-supremacists out there are using his credentials to justify whatever violent ideology they promote,and these people don't just talk,they harass,beat and kill non white people because they consider other "races" as subhumans.Words have consequences.

seekingtruth 12y ago
That something someone says makes you feel bad or is used by others to justify ideas or actions you find loathsome does not make that person or what he said wrong. Your skin color and height are highly heritable attributes and it is by no means an outrageous assertion to state that intelligence is as well. Some estimates for heritability of intelligence are as high as 0.8. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of...
- aikah 12y ago
  Not going to discuss with a a throwaway account. You can go back to /r/greatapes and have fun with your racist pals.
  - seekingtruth 12y ago
    There is never anything to discuss with people who would rather close their eyes and ears and call others names than bother to read discomforting information.
  - tomp 12y ago
    Using throwaway accounts makes sense for discussing controversial topics that people could use to e.g. damage your career.
- tinco 12y ago
  It's irrelevant whether intelligence is an inheritable trait or not. You can not say 'all Asians are short' nor 'all Africans are black' as they simply aren't all, nor does the precise number or accuracy give you indication about the traits of any single person. Watson is under the blatantly false impression that his statement have statistical merit when they clearly don't. He was simply wrong and should not have spoken about a field clearly outside his expertise. The interpretation of the adoption research in the article you linked is particularly infuriating as there is only one thing clearly dominating in the results, the upbringing of the child which accounts for a full 10 points, a number that would seem to point to an almost irrelevance of any genetic predisposition let alone one correlated with prehistoric ancestry, those 3 points could come from literally any uncontrolled for other environmental influence.