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

251–260 of 303 posts

Re: James Watson has died

#251

Post by tptacek »

somenameforme wrote: post #250
hnhg wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very little about this but just an observer your reply did little to refute any of the points made. You should loosen up a bit and keep an open mind about those points raised because it feels like you’re dismissing them.

This is one of those many issues that can be approached at a macro level. Don't think about this as an argument on the internet, but about the implications. Imagine there was compelling evidence for a environmental factor that might even possibly be controlled for. Do you realize how huge a deal this would be? Every single parent wants the best for their kids and would do anything for this. We, socially, already spen…

This is just handwaving. Behavioral genetics, psychometrics, and molecular genomics are thriving fields of study (often in tension with each other, so you even get fun Twitter arguments between the leading lights). It's not our fault you made the risible claim that the MTAS "once and forever put to rest any question of race and intelligence".

Re: James Watson has died

#252

Post by 1000units »

mcdonje wrote: post #249
1000units wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The groups have very different histories within the US, and one group can pass as the majority much easier than the other. Not comparable.

OK, and what of the other hundred countries or so? The Jews just blended in?

Re: James Watson has died

#253

Post by mcdonje »

1000units wrote: post #252
mcdonje wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The groups have very different histories within the US, and one group can pass as the majority much easier than the other. Not comparable.

OK, and what of the other hundred countries or so? The Jews just blended in?

Minnesota is in the US

Re: James Watson has died

#254

Post by bossyTeacher »

poncho_romero wrote: post #115
prmph wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general, it can be expected that people who really shift the scientific status quo will score low on agreeableness. We are not talking about disagreeableness that causes someone to pursue an unconventional path to discovery. We are talking about cheating, pure and simple. I hope you are not claiming that science rests on such behavior.

It’s fair to say Watson should have given more credit to the work of Franklin and Gosling, but to claim it’s “cheating, pure and simple” is clearly revisionist history.

Either his conduct was fair or it wasn't (misconduct). You are implying that it isn't without saying it outright, the comment you are replying is clearly calling it misconduct. I think in the spirit of debating you should be more direct and clearly state if you think he engaged in misconduct or not.

Re: James Watson has died

#255

Post by bossyTeacher »

inglor_cz wrote: post #50
bossyTeacher wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High on unkindness and plagarizing behaviour perhaps for not crediting Franklin when he should. We definitely need a debate on men who did amazing contributions to science but were terrible human beings

"We definitely need a debate on men..." What should be the outcome or even content of such debate? They existed; they were great and terrible; they are dead. Given the usual inability of mankind to deal with nuance, some will hate them and some will worship them. In general, it can be expected that people who really shift the scientific status quo will score low on agreeableness. It usually means trampling on someone…

The outcome of such debate is to look at history with a more critical lens as opposed to just looking at it the way our ancestors did. It is not irrational to deem Watson a terrible human being while also acknowledging his contributions to science. This gives us the clear human perspective of how science has developed across time and the things we can do to ensure we are able to address some of the downsides of the human aspects of science (i.e. sexual harassment, misogyny, etc)

Re: James Watson has died

#256

Post by clueless »

prmph wrote: post #124
clueless wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a clean game-theoretic terms, without making any moral or ideological claims about “who is smarter”, we’ll treat underlying advantage as any positional asset (intelligence, wealth, charisma, skill, social capital, etc.). The question is: If a subset of players has an advantage in a repeated, large-group game, how do they best play to maximize payoff and stability? Here's the strategy chatgpt came up with (amongst…

Hmmm, let's see. How many people died in wars in the 20th century? How many of them did NOT originate in Europe and Asia? How much of climate change that has fouled up the earth we depend is NOT attributable to economic activity in the west? Is there a western/Asian country where late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of of the common has not taken hold? I could go on... Are these evidence of intelligence? This is…

arguably I'd say wars can be generally indicative of intelligence. Higher-ability groups are more likely to choose war when their greater power raises the expected payoff of fighting. Climate change is also related to intelligence as it can argued that the more advance societies do end up consuming/producing more and thus create more Climate related waste. The end result of it might not be desirable, but probably something these advance societies can deal with.

I'm not sure I understand your point around late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of the common...

Are you really arguing that the western world has not been more advanced?

Re: James Watson has died

#257

Post by stogot »

aoasadflkjafl wrote: post #142
jaaustin wrote: post #102

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 r…

> especially if it's after a decade of doing physics research.

Who are you referring to in this?

Re: James Watson has died

#258

Post by EnPissant »

graemep wrote: post #203
morgengold wrote: post #201

Is someone able to tell me what about the genetics, race and IQ stuff is backed by evidence and what part is pure prejudice?

Given he said it in 2007, pretty much no evidence to back it up. Genetic differences between races are small compared to those within races, so much so that the concept of races does not really stand up scientifically. He seemed to have been basing the comments on IQ tests, which are not really a good way of comparing groups of people with different cultures or education. They score an individual within a group of co…

> Genetic differences between races are small compared to those within races.

That is a very misleading statement. Height differences within sexes are also greater than between sexes, and yet most men are taller than most women.

Re: James Watson has died

#259

Post by EnPissant »

tptacek wrote: post #245
somenameforme wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll respond by quoting the authors themselves: > "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a m…

You brought this up 7 months ago, and when I responded that this is in fact an active field of study with new science being produced constantly, you had no response. I presumed you just conceded the point. If you missed my point last time, well, I've made it for you again: your claim that this research is suppressed is trivially falsifiable.

You have in the past stated that race and intelligence can be considered a matter of faith to you and there is no evidence that could ever sway you. So are you sincerely debating here or is this just proselytizing?

Re: James Watson has died

#260

Post by rufus_foreman »

LarsDu88 wrote: post #71

Years ago I had the pleasure of sitting in on one of his talks on longevity. Other than the casual racism and sexism (Watson is the only person in my entire life I've seen say racist things about Irish people), he made a big comment on Linus Pauling's obsession towards the end of his life regarding Vitamin C consumption. The main idea is that primates such as humans and chimps lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C…

>> Watson is the only person in my entire life I've seen say racist things about Irish people

Oh my goodness, that's terrible. What racist things did Watson say about the Fighting Irish?

Post reply on HN