Thoughts on James Watson (DNA structure co-discoverer) controversial statements?

[disappoint]

So Hitler was.... right?

<insert name of homocidal or genocidal maniac here> once said that 2+2=4. He was right.

 

[disappoint]

Hardly. I'd say most scientists are closer to Carl Sagan than this guy. They don't even say anything about political correctness because only fucking idiots even discuss that. They discuss the actual topic and not vague bullshit.

There is a reason they don't discuss it. They know the risks in doing so. Not because it isn't a topic of interest to them.

 

[darkswordsman17]

OinkBoink, I agree with a lot of that. I'd like to add this: There are some things, perhaps a LOT of things, IQ can't measure.

IQ itself is a pretty meaningless statistic. There does seem to be a threshold for when its becomes overly detrimental though. The problem really isn't IQ its people's use of IQ. Lots of people with fine IQ that are still idiots because they've never really been trained to use much rational or critical thinking. Now if we didn't have massive issues with education (really we don't even fully understand education as there's no one size fits all solution) then it might be worth delving into IQ but there's a lot of other issues that would have a far greater impact. But then again maybe it would be possible to help those changes by population IQ manipulation but who knows.

Lots of people with high IQs don't positively impact society or in any way more than people with lower IQs.

 

[OinkBoink]

Political correctness is a theme that's likely to come up when you're talking about differences based on sensitive issues like race. There are so many intricate details one has to process to get a correct and objective understanding of the issue. A lot of people can't do that.

If I belonged to a race which, on an average, had a low IQ, I would not feel offended in the slightest because of that. It would make me think about what could be done to increase the avg. intelligence of the people of my race.

 

[zinfamous]

And perhaps we wouldn't know as much about genetics?

no not really.

watson/crick = meta study. the credit goes to the people that actually did the work. there were dozens of people working on the structure at the time. Watson/Crick simply happen to be the drunks that put it together, properly, before the others.


yes, drunks: their...work, was done in a pub.

Watson has always been a colossal prick, with no love lost in the field.

 

[zinfamous]

If I belonged to a race which, on an average, had a low IQ, I would not feel offended in the slightest because of that. It would make me think about what could be done to increase the avg. intelligence of the people of my race.

I bolded "if" because this qualifier makes it easy for you to say this.

your statement is clearly absurd.

 

[OinkBoink]

IQ itself is a pretty meaningless statistic. There does seem to be a threshold for when its becomes overly detrimental though. The problem really isn't IQ its people's use of IQ. Lots of people with fine IQ that are still idiots because they've never really been trained to use much rational or critical thinking. Now if we didn't have massive issues with education (really we don't even fully understand education as there's no one size fits all solution) then it might be worth delving into IQ but there's a lot of other issues that would have a far greater impact. But then again maybe it would be possible to help those changes by population IQ manipulation but who knows.

Lots of people with high IQs don't positively impact society or in any way more than people with lower IQs.

Yes, there are some issues with IQ tests regarding their validity, accuracy etc.

Also, intelligence can be very specific too (AFAIK). You may have fantastic skills in an area and be sub-par in another.

 

[darkswordsman17]

There is a reason they don't discuss it. They know the risks in doing so. Not because it isn't a topic of interest to them.

It, like religion, gets interjected all over the place by idiots instead of discussing the actual topic. They turn it into a "has political correctness gone too far" discussion. People don't care about individual topics, they just want to categorize everything in such a way that reinforces their perceived opinions. Hell 9 times out of 10 they didn't even bother to check the facts.

Seriously, if you're discussing molecular genetics WTF does PC have to do with anything? Notice it was only the people whining about overt PC that even brought that up? It has no place in the actual discussion other than to sidetrack it with idiotic bullshit. His claims would seem to be able to be factually discussed but few are. And even those are ignoring that this guy basically is just saying personal beliefs that go well beyond facts. That's the type of discussion that should come from this, not discussing those stupid beliefs and interjecting idiotic shit about political correctness.

 

[OinkBoink]

I bolded "if" because this qualifier makes it easy for you to say this.

your statement is clearly absurd.

Why is it absurd ? I'm Indian. I don't know where the average Indian stands on the IQ charts. Hence, I used the word 'if'.

Rather, let me say, if I DO belong to a race in which the IQ of the average person is low (relatively), I would not have a problem with that fact in the slightest.

 

[zinfamous]

Now, I'm not sure how scientific and rigorous the tests conducted were, but I've heard several scientists talk about race-IQ differences, which probabilistically, lends some credibility to those assertions.

IQ is a cultural score; not a race score. that's why such tests are inherently unscientific. If it is tied to culture (read:geography and socioeconomic status), then it might have merit.

But, calling this a study of race is not science. It's pure bullshit.


IQ, alone, is adjusted by generation (education, historical, social adjustments). So, it's a nonstandard score that, in itself, deifies real quantitative measure. It's merely something for simpleton hobbyists that want to mask their racism behind a wall of pseudoscience to present themselves as intelligent.

the kilogram? there is a fucking "kilogram" in storage, from which all of the world's weights are measured. (literally: a hunk of metal called "the kilogram" that is, in fact, the kilogram)

 

[zinfamous]

Why is it absurd ? I'm Indian. I don't know where the average Indian stands on the IQ charts. Hence, I used the word 'if'.

"if" is an assumption of "one from outside." You either are, or already don't believe yourself to be "of this class."

From outside, you can't make an accurate assumption of how those "within" would and should respond to such charges. How they should feel.

it is absurd.


further...I mentioned the problems with IQ scores above. It is not a measure that responds to race--a trait that, at the genetic level, is inherently "meaningless" (let me put this simply....in genetics, diversity = "best." therefore: black, i.e., African, = most diverse = best.) <--that is an oversimplification, but it works for this thread.

 

[OinkBoink]

IQ is a cultural score; not a race score. that's why such tests are inherently unscientific. If it is tied to culture (read:geography and socioeconomic status), then it might have merit.

But, calling this a study of race is not science. It's pure bullshit.


IQ, alone, is adjusted by generation (education, historical, social adjustments). So, it's a nonstandard score that, in itself, deifies real quantitative measure. It's merely something for simpleton hobbyists that want to mask their racism behind a wall of pseudoscience to present themselves as intelligent.

the kilogram? there is a fucking "kilogram" in storage, from which all of the world's weights are measured. (literally: a hunk of metal called "the kilogram" that is, in fact, the kilogram)

So what ? I've already accepted the kind of problems and challenges IQ testing faces practically.

I've hardly delved deep into the intricacies of the topic. There's much I have to learn about it.

 

[zinfamous]

So what ? I've already accepted the kind of problems and challenges IQ testing faces practically.
I've hardly delved deep into the intricacies of the topic. There's much I have to learn about it.

then you accept that it can never correlate to race?

so, therefore, any study or person trumpeting race and IQ is pure horseshit, right?

 

[OinkBoink]

..

 

[OinkBoink]

then you accept that it can never correlate to race?

so, therefore, any study or person trumpeting race and IQ is pure horseshit, right?

What do we mean by race here ? I wouldn't necessarily say they're pure 'horseshit' but I would say that there would usually be a lot of intricacies to cover, a lot of details to go into etc.

If you're saying that the concepts of race and IQ are poorly constructed and hence a discussion correlating them is sort of meaningless, there might be something to that. Many neuroscientists have expressed their concerns over the concept of IQ, the way it is measured etc.

There are lots and lots of things to be considered here.

Also, don't hold me down for every damn thing I say in this particular context (or what you perceive me as saying). My arguments are not always static. They're ever evolving. You learn when you constantly refine your arguments, change according to new data that comes in and better the logic of your arguments.

My ideas are open to scrutiny and I would like to change them myself if there are errors in them. But a proper discussion on this topic would take a lot of time, would require paying attention to detail/semantics and would require an environment unlike ATOT where people don't jump down each others' throats.

I wouldn't want anyone to take what I've said as definitive. There are things to add, words/ideas to explain etc.

 

[TridenT]

lol, all the overt and subvert racism ITT is gold...

It's good to see how many ignoramuses we have on this forum.

 

[StrangerGuy]

lol, all the overt and subvert racism ITT is gold...

It's good to see how many ignoramuses we have on this forum.

Yeah when talking about race by itself is now racist.

 

[Gibsons]

no not really.

watson/crick = meta study. the credit goes to the people that actually did the work. there were dozens of people working on the structure at the time. Watson/Crick simply happen to be the drunks that put it together, properly, before the others.


yes, drunks: their...work, was done in a pub.

Watson has always been a colossal prick, with no love lost in the field.

Crick was the brains in that operation anyway.

 

[Thebobo]

From Wikipedia

What are your thoughts on this mans controversial statements?

For a smart man he is pretty dumb. To think in this day and age what he said wouldn't have
ramifications is very niave.

 

[reallyscrued]

Why is it absurd ? I'm Indian. I don't know where the average Indian stands on the IQ charts. Hence, I used the word 'if'.

It's below average.

If I belonged to a race which, on an average, had a low IQ, I would not feel offended in the slightest because of that. It would make me think about what could be done to increase the avg. intelligence of the people of my race.

Pah hah. Okay, go look up the average Indian/South Asian IQ. Then start brainstorming all the different things you can do to increase the 'average intelligence' of your race.

I look forward to reading about your work in the papers.

Also, don't hold me down for every damn thing I say (or what you perceive me as saying). My arguments are not always static. They're ever evolving.

You could have picked a less cryptic way of saying "Don't try and catch me on my moronic statements, because for all you know, I might change my mind to less moronic ideas!"

 

[OinkBoink]

Sigh.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Crick was the brains in that operation anyway.

Actually wasn't it Franklin, the one that outright told them the DNA structure (double helix outside versus single inside) and provided the x-ray evidence they used to complete and publish "their" discovery?

 

[crashtestdummy]

Jim Watson is a dick. That's not to take away from his contribution in solving the structure of DNA. He was a brilliant molecular biologist for his time, and was one of the first to solve a biological secondary structure (Pauling came up with the alpha helix and beta sheet for proteins just two years before).

His views on genetics (which, believe it or not, is not his field) are oversimplistic at best and bigoted at worst. He cherry picks pieces of data that match his world view and runs with them, without establishing causation.

 

[ichy]

What are your thoughts on this mans controversial statements?

It's an unfortunate, non-PC reality that not everyone is equal.

 

[_Rick_]

One of the major problems of dealing with "race", is that there is no proper definition of that word. Even species is ambiguous at best.

We do not even know how to correctly classify race or species, based on genetic difference, at least not in a way that is truly accepted by the scientific community and based on statistically significant fact.
Without this, we cannot start to make claims about any perceived or measured differences between races. We also have a huge social challenge attached to many studies.

The moment we are able to quantify race, by looking at someones genotype, and assigning certain genes to certain races (due to regional in-breeding) is the moment we can possibly make such measurements.

Scientifically one thing about the term "race" is sure though - it's the effect of nothing but inbreeding, and breeding for specific features.

An interesting question: Is it good or bad, from an evolutionary standpoint, to have races in your species?
A lack of races means your population is very homogenous in the phenotype, but very heterogenous in the genotype. By having races, you have a more heterogenous phentoype, with several groups of races with more homogenous genotypes. Homogenous genotypes typically mean less chances for a "good" combination of genes, and more fragility to changes in the environment.