James Watson selling Nobel prize because being racist has been too rough on him

[Mazmaz]

Posted in another thread and didn't get any attention and apparently we're supposed to make a new thread if that happens.

Goes well with the whole "let's not criticize great scientists" theme we have going lately.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ll-nobel-prize

edit: can a mod spellcheck "racist" please

[Xno Kappa]

Goes well with the whole "let's not criticize great scientists" theme we have going lately.

One individual wore a harmless shirt with no malicious intent and created massive amounts of butthurt from the SJW collective. The other is an individual blatantly insulting and questioning the intelligence of a population of an entire continent solely based on race. Quite a theme indeed as the two situations are very much comparable. Thank you for exposing this Mazmaz.

Not that we're on topic, as he ever truly apologized or is he just sad from all the backlash?

[Thunder]

What exactly do you want to try and show with what's happening to the guy?

I mean, all the guy's problems come in from the belief that your success/contributions to society are dependent on your IQ (now we know that's wrong - 100% since 2001 or 4 afaik. Lots of good books/research on that, Bounce, Mastery, Outliers, and probably way more I don't remember reading)

He noticed blacks, on average, score less on IQ tests than whites and surmounted they're dumber than whites, right? None of his genetic background/education went into that conclusion. This happens all the time when great minds get out of their relevant fields, where they're geniuses, and try and comment on other shit

He fucked up and is now paying the price, so what? Your OP isn't very clear on what you think can be discussed here.... other than a huge angry circle jerk about how terrible the guy is

Can't help but feel like this is more evidence that people like you just want to spend their days bullying people with no real goal in mind, other than making yourself feel good

[Thunder]

One individual wore a harmless shirt with no malicious intent and created massive amounts of butthurt from the SJW collective. The other is an individual blatantly insulting and questioning the intelligence of a population of an entire continent solely based on race. Quite a theme indeed as the two situations are very much comparable. Thank you for exposing this Mazmaz.

Not that we're on topic, as he ever truly apologized or is he just sad from all the backlash?

No he didn't apologize. In 2007, seven years ago, he said that he regretted saying it, because, "you don't say things like that". So.. no, he hasn't apologized or changed his mind afaik and this is all pretty known. Idk why it's suddenly worth talking about now (yeah, he's selling his prize to "get by" with several million dollars, oh woe is him... lmao)

Other than, of course, finding something to be upset and angry about so that a large group of people can feel something and online media can get a bunch of clicks from them

[Mazmaz]

One individual wore a harmless shirt with no malicious intent and created massive amounts of butthurt from the SJW collective. The other is an individual blatantly insulting and questioning the intelligence of a population of an entire continent solely based on race. Quite a theme indeed as the two situations are very much comparable. Thank you for exposing this Mazmaz.

You sure bro? Cause last time, this was pretty much the general sentiment of anti-shirtgate. I'm trying to get at the fact that some people think there shouldn't be consequences for things you say or do if you've done something impressive.

[Lucavi]

that we're on topic, as he ever truly apologized or is he just sad from all the backlash?

He has not and will not, because he believes it. He only stated that its a pretty stupid move to espouse such thoughts and beliefs in a public setting, which it is.

[quannum]

so is this thread about shirtgate dude? or about watson? is it a thread dedicated to explaining the difference between the two to mazmaz?

[Thunder]

You sure bro? Cause last time, this was pretty much the general sentiment of anti-shirtgate. I'm trying to get at the fact that some people think there shouldn't be consequences for things you say or do if you've done something impressive.

What a leap. Correlation causation, anyone? Maybe those people are saying that because they think the shirt with cartoon girls in bikinis wasn't bad. I'm pretty sure if you asked those same people what they think of this doctor dealing with social blowback from his statements that they'd agree it's warranted.

Pretty sure you just admitted Matt Taylor deserved the harassment that brought him to tears for wearing the shirt he had no idea would offend SJWs (certainly can't say it offends women..). That sucks, and I feel sorry for you.

Anyway, this guy would be 100% fine, I'm sure, if he just owned what he said, retracted it, offered an actual apology, and let the media surrounding it die down. He didn't, he continues to assert his position on the matter so he'll face the consequences from being poorly portrayed by media. Good. I for one am happy we have people on all sides of extremes. It keeps the rest of us honest. This is a good thing

[GoggleHead]

Would the reaction to his statements be any different if there was data substantiating his claims?

[Thunder]

Would the reaction to his statements be any different if there was data substantiating his claims?

He does have evidence already. African + African American IQ scores are lower than white westerners (US/EU(?)).

He'd have to have some pretty fascinating evidence to link IQ to actual success/value/potential/whateveryoucallit when there have been at least a dozen GREAT books exposing how misunderstood a person's potential/etc has been 2 decades ago.

There's new school and old school. I'll try and explain quickly... Old school is what this guy still believes is true, which is IQ is the measure of someone's potential/intelligence and that genius permeates through different occupations, fields, etc - so business schools back in the day would teach kids all of the "general" info and think they'd be great NO MATTER WHERE they get placed. We know that's bullshit today

New school is more about domain mastery (10,000 hours to mastery is something a lot of authors/researches on it quote). Businesses now know to hire people who have a LOT of experience in that field. You don't want the maverick making billions of $ in the clothing manufacturing business to handle your technology assets. You want the dude, who even might be a dumbass according to his IQ/highschool/college scores, who has had 30 years managing tech assets with success

Basically, new school is exactly why this guy's comments on blacks being inferior to whites is dumb. He's a genius in genetics and what not but he used almost zero of his education/experience (in other words.. used zero of his domain mastery) to make claims about race. He stepped out of his domain and he's a dumb ass in it. Same reason Michael Jordan was a shit baseball player, Warren Buffett wouldn't be able to make billions in clothing, etcetc...

[Mazmaz]

Would the reaction to his statements be any different if there was data substantiating his claims?

Where's test123 and his inforgraphics

[BerenTebogo]

Yawn.

Really compelling comparison you've drawn here chap. Sure to spark some fruitful and intelligent conversation that will no doubt change the narrative of STEM fields everywhere.

[test123]

Where's test123 and his inforgraphics

Mods keep deleting my posts, my speech is being oppressed.

[thetruepandagod]

No such thing as a black race so clearly science man is mistaken and in the clear.

[BaneTheBrawler]

so is this thread about shirtgate dude? or about watson? is it a thread dedicated to explaining the difference between the two to mazmaz?

For now I am considering all of these as on-topic. I'll split them as needed.

[Priran]

Since this seems to be what Mazmaz is going after, yes I think that humanity would have been ill served by making it difficult for Watson to keep researching or lecturing because he had the poor foresight to publicly express a distasteful opinion, much like how society would be ill served by repealing the Civil rights act of 1964 because MLK was an adulterer, or make India go back to being a colony because Gandhi was some kind of scat fetishist sexual abuser. However, that isn't what happened here, he said this like 7 years ago and he's still a tenured professor.

[Outlaw]

Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean he is not a bigot. The IQ thing is not his idea anyway. I remember hearing about a woman scientist who said, according to her work, black people had lower average IQ's. I would like to know if that was what he was referencing.

[Kuya]

I'm just surprised that with Watson being a geneticist, he hasn't been able to show a causal link between genes largely found in black ethnicities and lower IQ, yet he continues to espouse the same belief that blacks possess inherently lower IQ levels. It's not uncommon for scientists to continue to believe and hope something is true despite not having enough evidence for it, but in Watson's case it just seems like old fashioned racism.

[Kuya]

Plus, genes aren't inherently tied to specific ethnicities. While you could find certain alleles that tend to congregate with certain ethnicities, that allele could easily be shared between blacks, whites, asians, etc. So for example, if a gene that is associated with lower IQ were largely found in black ethnicities, this gene could just as easily be found and passed to whites and other ethinicities. I imagine that's why racists might believe that race mixing is bad, but i suspect it's not because they have a grasp of genetics. But then the issue isn't blacks, but a specific gene or a specific allele that is probably completely independent of skin color.

While this isn't a "scientific" study per se, it supports my point that genes move freely between ethnicities and science doesn't support the misconceptions that racists have:

The fact that the “perfect human” is Puerto Rican makes a lot of sense. Since many disease SNPs are population specific, it makes sense that an individual homozygous for all “good” alleles should be admixed. And that is exactly what Puerto Ricans are. In a “women in the diaspora” study, Puerto Rican women born on the island but living in the United States were shown to be 53.3±2.8% European, 29.1±2.3% West African, and 17.6±2.4% Native American. In other words, to collect all the “good” alleles it is necessary to be admixed, but admixture itself is not sufficient for perfection.

http://liorpachter.wordpress.com/201...-puerto-rican/

The beginning of the article also has a part where the author talks about his personal encounters with Watson, if you had a doubt the guy was a racist. The article makes the point that while racists want to believe their own ethnicity is superior to all others, genetics will tell you that the more mixed the gene pool is, the more resilient to disease a population is. Few racists advocate for a massive mixing of all ethinicities to strengthen the gene pool.

[Enkidu]

Nobody is claiming that intelligence is largely related to one or even a few genes... Black people don't have a mystery "low IQ" gene and east asians don't have a mystery "high IQ" gene. Hundreds or even thousands of genes play a key role in intelligence.

Anyways genetic mixing is generally a good thing for populations, but it probably doesn't increase intelligence. Take for example Ashkenazic jews, a smaller gene pool with a number of congenital risk factors also have the highest average IQ. Of course higher IQ doesn't only mean "more genetic intelligence", but it's currently the best yard-stick we have.