Why he is a jerk? it's his rights to decide what to do with that medal. isn't it? Why people are criticizing him is out of my head.
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?
He established his reputation as a jerk independently of selling the medal. Here are some quotes:
> [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.
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.
> He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw.
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.
Without endorsing his other comments, I think his comment on the Irish is entirely reasonable. I'm Irish, BTW. He later clarified these remarks somewhat; it seems his main cone of contention with the Irish person who inspired him to make the original remark was her enthusiastic support for gene patents, which he considered to be lunacy.
why would someone downvote this? I'm simply pointing out facts. For example, see this paper by Wicherts et al [1]: "Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82."
the downvotes are quite amazing. this is just a basic factual matter -- nothing to do with whether watson's broader claims are true -- yet it seems some people are simply incapable of dealing with reality...
The guy is racist period.What he says is racist,no matter how talented he is.There is no excuse for what he says ,especially as a scientist.
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.
That something someone says makes you feel bad or is used by others to justify ideas or actions you find loathsome does not make that person or what he said wrong. Your skin color and height are highly heritable attributes and it is by no means an outrageous assertion to state that intelligence is as well. Some estimates for heritability of intelligence are as high as 0.8. [1]
It's irrelevant whether intelligence is an inheritable trait or not. You can not say 'all Asians are short' nor 'all Africans are black' as they simply aren't all, nor does the precise number or accuracy give you indication about the traits of any single person. Watson is under the blatantly false impression that his statement have statistical merit when they clearly don't. He was simply wrong and should not have spoken about a field clearly outside his expertise.
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.
> You can not say 'all Asians are short' nor 'all Africans are black' as they simply aren't all, nor does the precise number or accuracy give you indication about the traits of any single person. Watson is under the blatantly false impression that his statement have statistical merit when they clearly don't.
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?
I would object to both claims, because you, very much like Watson, seem to not grasp the idea that you can not simply drop a quantifier and assume people will interpret it as 'on average', this is simply not how the English language works. When Watson says "any person who has to deal with Black employees will know" he is implying that it is expected for any black employee to be dumb, whether he meant for that expectation or not. And frankly I believe he knows damn well how his language is interpreted and just hides behind his statistics to give his bigotry the illusion of merit.
On the one hand, you're totally right, I always interpret such statements as "in average" (or some other statistical quantifier, but definitely not "all"), and I don't know how other people understand it. On the other hand, I have never seen (in online discussions/articles that I read) object to the idea that Asians are smarter than whites (in the US) (except you), or call the statement bigoted/racist; in contrary, I would consider it fact (again, with appropriate quantifiers), and the discussion seems to be focused on how to deal with this fact (e.g. negative racial discrimination for Asians in universities).
Well I have my own beliefs of course, and they might taint my rationality in accepting such statements. Still it's good to be vigilant, it might be true that Asians on average perform better at certain tests at a certain age, this might not at all mean they were born more intelligent and might only correlate with their upbringing and the expectancies of the world around them.
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
Height is highly heritable. North and South Koreans are genetically the same. The average South Korean is six inches taller than the average North Korean.
What does the assertion that intelligence is heritable mean to you?
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.
There is never anything to discuss with people who would rather close their eyes and ears and call others names than bother to read discomforting information.
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?