> Jim Watson is one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. He is also a peevish bigot. History will remember him for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA, in 1953. This week, Watson is ensuring that history, or at least the introduction to every obituary, will also remember him for being a jerk.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
This is really terrible journalism, regardless of the truth in it.
People also call him racist because of his another discovery. I mean let him do whatever he wants to do with that. Will a medal going to carry away whatever he does for the science?
> [I am] 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.
He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. We're not just bashing someone for speaking a politically unpopular truth here (I cynically suspect that we would do just that were Watson's position correct, but fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case).
> Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them
> [the] historic curse of the Irish, which is not alcohol, it's not stupidity. But it's ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies
Also, he's selling the medal with the specific intent of thumbing his nose at the scientific community. He would draw much more sympathy if he had fallen on hard times due to misfortune, for instance.
I would be grateful if you could go into some more detail about this. There have been articles on HN recently that made a strong case for the genetic basis of IQ and for its validity as a measure of intelligence. It's also easy to find data about the average measured IQ in different racial groups. But there are also a variety of arguments that weaken or strengthen the case, from the Flynn effect to studies on twins, adopted children, etc. It seems to me that the issue is muddled, at best. If there is a slam-dunk argument that can finally bury the notion of intelligence differences between races, I'd like to see it articulated.
Disclaimer: I do not belong to the race with the highest supposed IQ, and I have never taken an IQ test myself, so I really have no horse in this race. Also, even if racial differences in intelligence were real, individual differences would still be more important, and it would remain unacceptable to make assumptions about someone's intelligence based on their race.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions...
I'm black.to suggest that my intelligence is linked to the color of my skin is ridiculous.
And never forget that a whole bunch of white-supremacists out there are using his credentials to justify whatever violent ideology they promote,and these people don't just talk,they harass,beat and kill non white people because they consider other "races" as subhumans.Words have consequences.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of...
The interpretation of the adoption research in the article you linked is particularly infuriating as there is only one thing clearly dominating in the results, the upbringing of the child which accounts for a full 10 points, a number that would seem to point to an almost irrelevance of any genetic predisposition let alone one correlated with prehistoric ancestry, those 3 points could come from literally any uncontrolled for other environmental influence.
This is an intellectually dishonest interpretation of statistics and/or his claims. Saying "all Asians are short" is stupid, but saying "Asians are shorter than Europeans" is not; my interpretation of the statement is that Asians are in average (or even better, in median) shorter than Europeans, not that all Asians are shorter than any European (btw, I don't know if it's true, and I don't particularly care, but it very well could be, and it very well could be the reverse).
About race and intelligence, I don't think it's a controversial claim, at least in the US, that Asians are more intelligent than whites, who are in turn more intelligent than blacks. Now, the reasons for this are varied, and might nothing to do with race, but with history (e.g. Asians are descendants of immigrants who were driven to succeed, while blacks are descendants of slaves, who grew up in poor neighborhoods). Why would you object to the second claim, but not the first one?
Also, I think universities have the job to yield brilliant researchers, inventors and engineers. I don't think any racial prejudice would be a very fundamental way of working towards that goal, so I'd rather they not do it, even if it means whites would rarely be accepted.
Of course, that whole problem might be caused by their entry exams not being a very good way of selecting for their goal, but that's me as a hopeful white person :p
What does the assertion that intelligence is heritable mean to you?
It means that if I dropped a bunch of Danes into South Korea, their children would be closer in height to their cohort in Denmark than would the children of another group of Danes dropped into North Korea. The North Korean Danes would be taller than the North Koreans and the South Korean Danes would be taller than the South Koreans.