Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Watson has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 303 posts

Re: James Watson has died

#61

Post by cogman10 »

catigula wrote: post #53
cogman10 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He says that…

> To generalize capabilities based on genetics is simply foolish as the pool is far more vast than what you'd find in England, for example. This seems like a very, very odd statement. The genetic pool of Ashkenazi Jews is fairly small and nobody believes they’re not particularly intelligent. The genetic pool of a single family of very, very bright people is even smaller still. Next, we can discuss what percentage of…

Why?

If you fundamentally believe intelligence is solely linked to genetics, then trying to say a group with vast genetic diversity is all inferior is racist. A widely diverse genetic population will have a wide and diverse intelligence. You couldn't reasonably tell what any given individual or group could achieve because there's so much diversity.

> The genetic pool of Ashkenazi Jews is fairly small and nobody believes they’re not particularly intelligent.

This is widely disputed [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

Re: James Watson has died

#62

Post by terminalshort »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
flkiwi wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> Wow, good genes! Said with irony? I mean, the guy was into eugenics—thought some races are smarter than others.

> the guy was into eugenics

So are you (probably). Do you think incest should be legalized?

> thought some races are smarter than others

What other conclusion can you reasonably come to based on the available data?

Re: James Watson has died

#64

Post by rafale »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
flkiwi wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> Wow, good genes! Said with irony? I mean, the guy was into eugenics—thought some races are smarter than others.

If you say person X thought Y was true, ask yourself if Y was true would you accept it? If the answer is no you are not ready for this kind of discussion.

As for whether it's true or not, let's just say we don't know for sure because scientists either are not allowed or don't want to research this question.

Re: James Watson has died

#66

Post by catigula »

cogman10 wrote: post #61
catigula wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To generalize capabilities based on genetics is simply foolish as the pool is far more vast than what you'd find in England, for example. This seems like a very, very odd statement. The genetic pool of Ashkenazi Jews is fairly small and nobody believes they’re not particularly intelligent. The genetic pool of a single family of very, very bright people is even smaller still. Next, we can discuss what percentage of…

Why? If you fundamentally believe intelligence is solely linked to genetics, then trying to say a group with vast genetic diversity is all inferior is racist. A widely diverse genetic population will have a wide and diverse intelligence. You couldn't reasonably tell what any given individual or group could achieve because there's so much diversity. > The genetic pool of Ashkenazi Jews is fairly small and nobody belie…

> If you fundamentally believe intelligence is solely linked to genetics

Strawman argument. I never said that.

>This is widely disputed.

No, it isn’t. You can plot ashkenazi Jews on a pct chart and their cluster is much tighter than the SNP distance between Norwegians and Swedish people. That means they have less genetic diversity, which is what you’d expect from a cohesive ethnic group.

Re: James Watson has died

#67

Post by culi »

echelon wrote: post #46
jacksnipe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean plagiarized it?

Franklin and her grad student produced key experimental data that corrected and confirmed the model that Watson and Crick were already hard at work on. Franklin's experimental data wasn't the only key experimental data, but it was pivotal. Franklin could have elucidated the structure of DNA herself, but she was working on other problems. Watson and Crick were head's deep in the problem and were building stick figure…

This is not an honest depiction of the full picture.

At the time, scientists already suspected a corkscrew structure but there was disagreement between what that looked like or whether it was double or triple helixed.

Franklin's key experiments resulted in the Photograph 51 that almost single-handedly proved the structure. Before Franklin could publish her data, Wilkins—without the consent or knowledge of Franklin—took that photo and showed Watson. Watson later stated that his mouth dropped when he saw the photo. It proved to him the double helix structure and that guided the rest of their modeling/work. At that point they knew what they were proving. Two months later they'd advanced their model far enough and rushed to publication before Franklin could be credited with her own work

Not only did they use Franklin's work without her consent, not only did they not credit her, but they even belittled her in their books and talks. They even referred to her as "Rosy", a name she never used herself.

Re: James Watson has died

#68

Post by dekhn »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
flkiwi wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> Wow, good genes! Said with irony? I mean, the guy was into eugenics—thought some races are smarter than others.

Even if he was "into eugenics", there is strong evidence that your genetic makeup contributes significantly to your longevity.

Re: James Watson has died

#69

Post by flkiwi »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
flkiwi wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> Wow, good genes! Said with irony? I mean, the guy was into eugenics—thought some races are smarter than others.

I mean, he lived to 97. Given what he's known for, it made me chuckle. Anyway, I thought it was Crick who was into eugenics. If it was both of them, I'm afraid I shall have to amend my opinion of both of them from "disturbingly troubling" to "unredeemable so let's just get them out of the textbooks thanks" right away.

Re: James Watson has died

#70

Post by gaogao »

saghm wrote: post #52
flkiwi wrote: post #38

[flagged]

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

> 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

Post reply on HN