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

261–270 of 303 posts

Re: James Watson has died

#261

Post by prmph »

clueless wrote: post #256
prmph wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

The European/Asian wars of the 20th century (ironically started by people who thought of themselves as superior races) wiped out ten of millions of lives and an untold amount of wealth. It led to the collapse of entire empires and nations. Surely you are not claiming that the wars were a net positive, are you? One indicator of a lack of intelligence is engaging in actions that are against your own interests.

Also, with climate change, may I remind you of quote from Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy:

> I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

Industrialization followed this pattern. Shitting where you live is a textbook case of stupid.

> The end result of it might not be desirable, but probably something these advance societies can deal with.

The people dying in extreme floods and fires tell me otherwise, and it's likely only going to get worse.

Re: James Watson has died

#262

Post by tptacek »

EnPissant wrote: post #259
tptacek wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm having trouble even parsing what your comment is claiming that I believe, but either way, this thread is dealing in falsifiable statements, not psychoanalysis. Is this research being suppressed, so that new new science can be done it, thus justifying the claim that a study last updated over 20 years ago is dispositive of racial/genetic/intelligence causality? No, it is not.

Re: James Watson has died

#263

Post by EnPissant »

tptacek wrote: post #262
EnPissant wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm having trouble even parsing what your comment is claiming that I believe, but either way, this thread is dealing in falsifiable statements, not psychoanalysis. Is this research being suppressed, so that new new science can be done it, thus justifying the claim that a study last updated over 20 years ago is dispositive of racial/genetic/intelligence causality? No, it is not.

From this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674992

Here you said:

> If it helps, you can think of my opposition to the notion that blacks are somehow intellectually inferior to whites as religious, and you might just as productively spend your time trying to convert me to Zoroastrianism.

Someone even mentioned that this was falsifiable:

> His admission really is incredibly revealing, and refreshingly, even depressingly honest. He's literally saying no amount of reason or evidence could change his mind on a matter that is obviously (in principle) falsifiable. I think it's safe to say that, so far as full contact with reality is concerned, he is a lost cause.

Anyways, I am just interested if you have changed your mind, and you are now treating this as falsifiable or if it is impossible to convince you with any evidence. I think this is useful information for anyone debating you in good faith.

Re: James Watson has died

#264

Post by pazimzadeh »

inglor_cz wrote: post #178
pazimzadeh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that means that black people are inherently less intelligent?

Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but that was not the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that the current Western Civilization is so afraid of this hypothesis and its possible ramifications if it turned out to be even semi-correct, that it will try to destroy anyone who even dares to say it aloud, instead of approaching it without prejudice and studying it. That is a political taboo , on the same lev…

I think the reason western civilization is afraid of the idea of inherent genetic limitations to intelligence is because the logical next step would not be focusing on education, but probably restarting some form of eugenics or genetic engineering of our progeny, and the last time that happened it didn't go very well. Also, much of 'western civilization' is founded on treating people as if they are equal, so the idea that one subgroup of humans is superior to another obviously rubs us the wrong way.

I can't even tell what your suggestion is, what is the low-hanging fruit you are talking about? If you come out and say what your stance is (maybe you think we should genetically engineer babies to score higher on IQ tests?) then we could have a debate about the merits of those ideas. As it stands I have no idea what you're suggesting, which has the side effect of making you irrefutable I guess.

Your general analysis seems way off. Secular skepticism goes back a long time in Iran (way before the European Enlightenment), and few Iranians would be shocked to hear "Allah probably does not exist".

Here are some quatrains by Omar Khayyam (1048 CE) which are well known by everyone in Iran:

    They say that in paradise there will be maidens with beautiful eyes,
    There will be wine, milk, and honey.
    If we have chosen wine and a beloved here, what’s the harm?
    Since in the end, the outcome is the same.

    The secrets of eternity neither you know nor I;
    The solution to the riddle neither you find nor I.
    There are inscriptions on the Tablet of Fate;
    But when it comes to reading them, neither you can nor I.
Same goes for Russia and China, I'm very skeptical that the general population has a taboo about those ideas. A social taboo is not .

Re: James Watson has died

#265

Post by tptacek »

EnPissant wrote: post #263
tptacek wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble even parsing what your comment is claiming that I believe, but either way, this thread is dealing in falsifiable statements, not psychoanalysis. Is this research being suppressed, so that new new science can be done it, thus justifying the claim that a study last updated over 20 years ago is dispositive of racial/genetic/intelligence causality? No, it is not.

From this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674992 Here you said: > If it helps, you can think of my opposition to the notion that blacks are somehow intellectually inferior to whites as religious, and you might just as productively spend your time trying to convert me to Zoroastrianism. Someone even mentioned that this was falsifiable: > His admission really is incredibly revealing, and refreshingly, eve…

You just went back 10 years in my comment history to find a comment that has nothing to do with the thread we're on, on a thread that has nothing to do with the thread we're on, on the basis that me not believing that Black people are racially inferior to white people dictates what I think about behavioral genetics.

In addition to being rude, it isn't even logically coherent. What I do or do not thing about racial supremacy has nothing to do with the very answerable question about whether behavior and molecular genetics research regarding intelligence is being published.

Re: James Watson has died

#266

Post by pazimzadeh »

foxglacier wrote: post #169
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…

He was right. The research does show black people are genetically less intelligent than white people, and nobody has ever found it to be otherwise. There's really no reason at all to think all races might be equal in intelligence. That's pure political bias with no basis in science. Why mention genetic diversity? Spell out your logical steps instead of just stating isolated facts and leaving others to guess what you'…

"the research"

where is this research

> Why mention genetic diversity?

honestly, just think about it a little longer

Re: James Watson has died

#267

Post by cwmma »

EnPissant wrote: post #258
graemep wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No your the one that's being misleading, genetics isn't height and race isn't a coherent genetic category.

It should be noted that Watson knew this hence why he was focused on the one thing you can say very definitely about black people in America, that they have darker skin then white people and thus was trying to tie melanin to to intelegence.

Re: James Watson has died

#268

Post by cwmma »

morgengold wrote: post #207
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?

thanks graemep andand patall for taking the time. It is amazing to see a man of high intelligence like Watson is not able to base is views on the evidence. For me, I work usally with the assumption: "Even if there existed small differences IQ between races explained by genetics, it never tells you something about the individual before you." Would you say this is a valid belief?

That's like saying:

"Even if there was small differences in honesty caused by being a Spaniard, it never tells you something about the individual before you."

When there is no actual evidence of Spaniards being dishonest and the only people making the argument seem to already have a beef with the people of Spain.

Re: James Watson has died

#269

Post by cwmma »

focusgroup0 wrote: post #216
nikanj wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, because the evidence itself is not created in a vacuum. There is no objective way to measure IQ "stuff", so depending on the methods picked you get wildly different results

>There is no objective way to measure IQ "stuff" SAT + GPA are proxies for "IQ stuff" and are highly predictive of future academic success: https://international.collegeboard.org/toolkit/sat-policy/un...

So first off, no shit the college board things the SAT measures good stuff, it's their test.

Second nobody said the SATs don't measure something, but that something is ability to take an SAT test which is highly predictive of how well you can take other tests. Which as our society puts lots of stock into tests isn't nothing but it's not measuring anything inate.

Re: James Watson has died

#270

Post by inglor_cz »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #264
inglor_cz wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but that was not the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that the current Western Civilization is so afraid of this hypothesis and its possible ramifications if it turned out to be even semi-correct, that it will try to destroy anyone who even dares to say it aloud, instead of approaching it without prejudice and studying it. That is a political taboo , on the same lev…

I think the reason western civilization is afraid of the idea of inherent genetic limitations to intelligence is because the logical next step would not be focusing on education, but probably restarting some form of eugenics or genetic engineering of our progeny, and the last time that happened it didn't go very well. Also, much of 'western civilization' is founded on treating people as if they are equal, so the idea…

In my previous comment, I was talking quite explicitly about political taboos, not societal taboos.

When I was a kid, the general population of Czechoslovakia would not be shocked by a joke about stupid drunken Soviet Communists, but if someone snitched on you, that joke would still land you in prison.

As with Iran (and I noticed your Persian handle), I absolutely understand that there is a lot of agnostic and skeptical Iranians, but saying that Allah does not exist in front of some henchmen of the Islamic Republic will likely lead to trouble, am I correct?

the logical next step

Well, would it be? We're 100 years downstream from those times. It is a bit like saying that if a modern American city wants to reintroduce streetcars, it will logically resurrect the wooden boxes of the 1920s that will shake your bones whenever they accelerate.

As of now, we know preciously little about natural intelligence, and I personally don't believe that "ignorance is strength", neither am I a fan of fear masquerading as wisdom. We have likely missed some low hanging fruit because of our deliberate ignorance.

If we are slowly conquering cancer, which once seemed intractable, we could slowly conquer stupidity as well, but that requires knowing something about the subject first, instead of blindly trusting some faith.

It is well possible that 100 years from now, something like "glasses for the brain" will exist, something that sharpens your thought process much like glasses sharpen your vision. Of course that the road to this will be full of potholes, but we should try anyway.

so the idea that one subgroup of humans is superior to another

Why should higher intelligence be considered a basis for "superiority"? We don't consider richer, more beautiful or more eloquent people to be "superior" to the poorer or uglier ones, and we should treat differences in intelligence the same.

Post reply on HN