Live data from Hacker News

James Watson has died

nytimes.com

141–150 of 303 posts

Re: James Watson has died

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's most likely a combination of both genetics and society - neither are absolutes. There is no concrete evidence that intelligence is purely a social construct, nor that it is genetic. We simply don't know. People get cancelled not for saying that it is genetic, but for questioning whether it may be. Of course, we will never know if we're not allowed to ask. Cancel culture is anti-science. Watson may have been raci…

>There is no concrete evidence that intelligence is purely a social construct, nor that it is genetic. There isn't even any concrete evidence that it's a good thing.

Intelligence has a significant genetic component, otherwise it couldn't have evolved.

"Intelligence isn't genetic" is the left's version of creationism.

Re: James Watson has died

#142

I want to use this opportunity to shill possibly the best history of science ever written: The Eighth Day of Creation [1], which describes the history of structural biology, including Watson’s various contributions. He comes across as a precocious asshole, not without talent but with a stronger eye towards self-advancement. [1] https://www.cshlpress.com/default.tpl?cart=17625586661954464...

I am adjacent to the field, have read old perspectives, and have worked closely with some of that milieu's students, so that I have gotten my share of gossip from octogenerians who still pick sides in all of this. To spread some of that gossip, one opinion worth mentioning is that the only "real genius" among that group (including Franklin and Wilkins) was actually Crick, and that Watson was precocious but that his real brilliance was clinging to him. It's probably worth mentioning that being a 30 something doing a PhD seems to be a big advantage, though, especially if it's after a decade of doing physics research.

Edit: Watson is also personally responsible for convincing one of the most unethical and conniving scientists I know to go into science rather than medicine, so I have additional reasons to be suspicious, given assholes propagate assholes. If you're a Crick, for God's sake, stop taking pity, and don't tolerate Watsons even if you feel bad for them or they treat you in particular very well, have some standards and be a Stoner.

Re: James Watson has died

#143
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Lots of assholes have done lots of great things. Some of the most important people in history have been assholes.

Because there are lots of people who do great things who aren't assholes. We as a society should prioritize valourzing the non-assholes who do great things over the assholes who do great things.

Is that really true thought? I can't quantify this but qualitatively it seems like most of the people who accomplished great things really were assholes. I mean even here in the tech industry think of the people we commonly consider great. If you look deeply into their lives and talk to people who knew them personally you'll usually find they were kind of jerks. Is that just a coincidence or could there be a causal relationship?

Re: James Watson has died

#144

I want to use this opportunity to shill possibly the best history of science ever written: The Eighth Day of Creation [1], which describes the history of structural biology, including Watson’s various contributions. He comes across as a precocious asshole, not without talent but with a stronger eye towards self-advancement. [1] https://www.cshlpress.com/default.tpl?cart=17625586661954464...

Amazing book. Tied with _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_ as my favorite non-fiction book.

Re: James Watson has died

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no concrete evidence that intelligence is purely a social construct, nor that it is genetic. There isn't even any concrete evidence that it's a good thing.

Intelligence has a significant genetic component, otherwise it couldn't have evolved. "Intelligence isn't genetic" is the left's version of creationism.

No one is claiming that intelligence isn't genetic. Certainly not "the left."

The claim is that race as commonly understood and defined (specifically by eugenicists like Watson) has no genetic basis, and therefore claims which follow from that definition such as "Asians have higher IQ" are not scientifically valid, and do not prove the validity of Watson's racial views.

For some reason sparkie just decided to reframe my comment around a claim I didn't make and now here we are litigating a "leftist" strawman.

I'm so tired.

Re: James Watson has died

#146
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Lots of assholes have done lots of great things. Some of the most important people in history have been assholes.

Because there are lots of people who do great things who aren't assholes. We as a society should prioritize valourzing the non-assholes who do great things over the assholes who do great things.

may I ask which of the following situations is preferrable: an asshole who saves your life, or a non asshole who lets you die because its the right thing to do?

Re: James Watson has died

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Lots of assholes have done lots of great things. Some of the most important people in history have been assholes.

I care. His legacy is tarnished by being a bad human being, when it is pretty easy to be a decent person. It’s worth recognizing the accomplishment without lauding the person. Especially when the accomplishment is built on basically stolen/unacknowledged work. I’d rather have more Rosalynd Franklin in the world than more James Watson.

The work was given to him by Wilkins who was in his right to do it.

Re: James Watson has died

#148
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why?

Collective action to dissuade assholes from being assholes is a net positive for everyone. The less assholes you have to deal with in your day to day affairs the better off you are.

There's no dissuading someone from being an asshole.

Re: James Watson has died

#149
post #67
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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—to…

To defend Wilkins, it was John Randall, the director of the lab Wilkins and Franklin both worked in, who probably intentionally pitted them against each other to mess with or motivate Wilkins. Wilkins was possibly the most honorable out of all five people involved in the situation.

Wilkins was "second-in-command" to Randall, developed the DNA structure project, and convinced Randall to assign more people to work on it. Randall then hired Franklin, reassigned Gosling, the graduate student who had been working with Wilkins, to Franklin, and told Franklin that Wilkins would simply be handing over his data to her and that she would subsequently have full ownership of the project. Randall didn't tell Wilkins any of this of course, so a lot of hard feelings developed between Franklin and him. The situation got worse when Wilkins tried to get sample from external collaborators to continue working on the project himself and Randall forced him to hand over one of the samples to Franklin. Franklin finally got sick of Randall herself and left, leaving Randall to turn over all the data to Wilkins, who then went to talk about his pet research interest with Crick, a personal friend of his. Wilkins then recused himself from Crick's paper, feeling he hadn't contributed enough to it. He also worried publicly to others that maybe he had been unkind and driven Franklin out, having minimal insight into Randall's tactics, which are unfortunately common in the field. When they're being used on you by someone skilled in them, it's often hard to realize, and you end up being resentful of the person you're being pitted against until one of you leaves and you suddenly have clarity because the stress of the situation is suddenly reduced.

Re: James Watson has died

#150
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why?

Collective action to dissuade assholes from being assholes is a net positive for everyone. The less assholes you have to deal with in your day to day affairs the better off you are.

By the time you start advocating for "collective action", you should have defined what the goal of the action is a lot more precisely than "dissuade assholes from being assholes" because a social movement with an ambiguous goal is a menace to society: there is a reason no one want another witch hunt.

If the goal of the collective action is to cancel anyone who (like Watson did) asserts that one race of people is on average less intelligence than another race, then say so.

Post reply on HN