The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Scientific American Fires Blogger Who Gave "Troublesome Inheritance" Good Review
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Remember the good review of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance in Scientific American? Well, that blogger, Ashutosh Jogalekar, has now been fired.

From the Washington Post:

What’s going on at Scientific American? Deleted posts, sexism claims, a fired writer.

By Paul Farhi July 16

Throughout its 169-year history, Scientific American has been an august and sober chronicler of the advance of human knowledge, from chemistry to physics to anthropology.

Lately, however, things have become kind of a mess.

A series of blog posts on the magazine’s Web site over the past few months has unleashed waves of criticism and claims that the publication was promoting racism, sexism and “genetic determinism.”

Late last week, the publication took down the latest alleged outrage, a post about the late physicist Richard Feynman and his notorious womanizing. Then it republished the post with an editor’s note explaining that it was restoring the article “in the interest of openness and transparency.”

And it fired the blogger who wrote it.

The trouble started in April when a guest blogger, a doctoral student named Chris Martin, wrote about Lawrence H. Summers’ assertions when he was president of Harvard University about the paucity of women in some scientific fields. While acknowledging that discrimination played a role in holding back women, Martin also concluded, “the latest research suggests that discrimination has a weaker impact than people might think, and that innate sex differences explain quite a lot.”

The post drew a sharp pushback, particularly on social media, from readers who questioned Martin’s scientific and cultural bona fides. “This slovenly article above is so full of outdated information it is painful,” wrote one commenter.

The second land mine was a post in May by Ashutosh Jogalekar, which favorably reviewed a controversial book by Nicholas Wade, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.” Jogalekar praised the book, saying it confirms the need to “recognize a strong genetic component to [social and cognitive] differences” among racial groups.

This time, some social-media commenters accused Scientific American of promoting questionable racial theories. In early July, the reaction led the publication’s blog editor, Curtis Brainard, to post a note that read in part, “While we believe that [the racism and sexism] charges are excessive, we share readers’ concerns. Although we expect our bloggers to cover controversial topics from time to time, we also recognize that sensitive issues require extra care, and that did not happen here.”

The last straw was Jogalekar’s post on Friday about Feynman, the Nobel-winning father of quantum electrodynamics. Commenting on recent biographies of Feynman, Jogalekar noted the physicist’s “casual sexism,” including his affairs with two married women, his humiliation of a female student and his delight in documenting his strategies for picking up women in bars.

Feynman was a Pick-Up Artist and one chapter in his beloved memoir Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman is PUA advice on how to pick up women in bars by not being nice to them.

But while expressing disappointment in Feynman’s behavior, Jogalekar essentially dismissed it as a byproduct of the “male-dominated American society in the giddy postwar years.”

Within a day of the column’s appearance, Scientific American pulled it from its site, with another note from Brainard: “The text of this post has been removed because it did not meet Scientific American’s quality standards.”

One other thing: Jogalekar was fired. …

Pour encourager les autres

Jogalekar said his dust-up with the magazine left him disappointed, but not angry or bitter. He intends to continue blogging under his own heading, the Curious Wavefunction. “This was a teachable moment,” he said.

One lesson he said he learned: “Scientific American writes about some controversial topics, like climate change and [genetically modified organisms], and evolution. Race and sex are much more sensitive than GMO or climate change.”

Here’s a chunk of the offending Last Straw post by Jogalekar that got him fired:

Update: Because Feynman is a giant in both American science and in popularity among intelligent Americans, I’m going to put the rest of this beneath the fold and repeat it as a separate post:



Challenger hearing: Feynman puts the O-ring in the ice water.

What started bothering me more the deeper I dug into Feynman’s life was something quite different: his casual sexism. The latest insight into this comes from Lawrence Krauss’s book “Quantum Man” which does a great job explaining the one thing about Feynman that should matter the most – his science. But Krauss also does not ignore the warts. What startled me the most was the fact that when he was a young, boyish looking professor at Cornell, Feynman used to pretend to be a student so he could ask undergraduate women out. I suspect that this kind of behavior on the part of a contemporary professor would almost certainly lead to harsh disciplinary action, as it should. The behavior was clearly, egregiously wrong and when I read about it my view of Feynman definitely went down a notch, and a large notch at that. Feynman’s apparent sexism was also the subject of a 2009 post with a sensationalist title; the post pointed out one chapter in “Surely…” in which Feynman documented various strategies he adopted for trying to get women in bars to sleep with him. Neither were Feynman’s escapades limited to bars; more than one of his biographies have documented affairs with two married women, at least one of which caused him considerable problems.

It’s not surprising to find these anecdotes disturbing and even offensive, but I believe it would also be premature and simplistic to write off Richard Feynman as “sexist” across the board. People who want to accuse him of this seem to have inadvertently cherry-picked anecdotes; the nude painting in topless bars, the portrayal of a woman in a physics lesson as a clueless airhead, the propensity to lie on the beach and watch girls. But this view of Feynman misses the big picture. While not an excuse, several of his 1950s adventures were probably related to the deep pain and insecurity caused by the death of his first wife Arlene; by almost any account the two shared a very deep and special bond. It was also during the late 40s and early 50s that Feynman was doing some of his most intense work on quantum electrodynamics, and at least a few of the situations he narrates were part of him letting off steam.

Also importantly, while some of Feynman’s utterances and actions appear sexist to modern sensibilities, it’s worth noting that they were probably no different than the attitudes of a male-dominated American society in the giddy postwar years, a society in which women were supposed to take care of the house and children and men were seen as the bread winners. Thus, any side of Feynman that raises our eyebrows is really an aspect of a biased American society. In addition, Feynman’s ploys to pick up girls in bars were – and in fact are – probably practiced by every American male seeking companionship in bars, whether consciously or unconsciously; what made Feynman different was the fact that he actually documented his methods, and he was probably the only scientist to do so. In fact we can be thankful that society has now progressed to a stage where both genders can practice these mate-seeking strategies on almost equal terms, although the gap indicated by that “almost” deserves contemplation as an indication of the unequal bargaining power that women still have. The point though is that, whatever his actions appear like to a modern crowd, I do not think Richard Feynman was any more sexist than a typical male product of his times and culture. The fact that society in general behaved similarly to what he did of course does not excuse the things he did, but it also puts them in perspective. I think recognizing this perspective is important partly to understand how our views on sexism have changed for the better from 1950 to 2014. The encouraging development is that actions by Feynman – and male society in general – that were considered acceptable or amusing in 1950 would quite rightly cause instant outrage in 2014. We still have a long way to go before both genders achieve parity in science, but the change in attitudes is definitely encouraging.

However the fact that simply dismissing Feynman as sexist is problematic is ascertained by this 1999 article from the MIT Tech (by a woman) which gives us a more complete picture of his views toward women. As far as we know, there is no evidence that Feynman discriminated against women in his career; the letters he writes to women in the collection of letters edited by his daughter indicate no bias. Both male and female students admired him. His sister Joan documents how he was always supportive of her own career in physics. At one point he came to the aid of a female professor filing a discrimination suit at Caltech. In addition he was a devoted husband to his first and third wife and a loving and supportive father to his daughter who in fact tried hard to get her interested in science.

The irony thus seems to be that, just like Feynman was fond of generating cherry picked anecdotes about himself, we seem to be fond of generating skewed, cherry picked anecdotes about him that accuse him of sexism.

Well, I never … How can anyone be allowed to express any view on the subject other than that Richard Feynman should be dug up and his rotting corpse tried by a jury of staffers at the campus Diversity Nook?

 
    []
  1. What’s the big deal?

    It’s not as if the history of science is defined by episodes of powerful people censoring controversial ideas.

    Besides, what has Feynman ever done for science? I mean, compared to hundreds of women?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Borachio
    "Besides, what has Feynman ever done for science? I mean, compared to hundreds of women?"

    Hear, hear!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/scientific-american-fires-blogger-who-gave-troublesome-inheritance-good-review/#comment-616357
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I posted a comment to Handel’s list -> http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

    We need to keep it up to date. There are actually people out there who will try to tell you that these purgings aren’t happening.

    Read More
  3. How can people get so upset about Richard Feynman trying to pick up women? James Watson wrote about trying to pick up women in his book and nobody’s ever accused him of…wait, crap, I see a pattern…

    Read More
  4. You are correct, Comrade Steve. the Party needs to commence daily Two Minute Hates of Feynman, dig up his corpse, and try him for hatethought and sexhurt. His books and writings should be purged and all his students, and their students, need to be liquidated. anyone who ever read a book about Feynman needs to be sent to a Thought Purification Camp.

    Read More
  5. MC says:

    “This slovenly article above is so full of outdated information it is painful.”

    By “outdated” the commenter means to say that Jogalekar failed to read Salon’s list of things that were OK to say before but NOT OK to say now.

    Read More
  6. Numinous says:

    You should be happy. The guy is Indian, probably the offspring of an immigrant or H-1B worker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You should be happy. The guy is Indian, probably the offspring of an immigrant or H-1B worker.

    He is first generation. Like so many educated Hindus, he came here to study, got a PhD and then a job in the industry. He is most probably on H-1B right now. Only difference is that he is much smarter than his average compatriot.
  7. enderby says:

    Stalinist boilerplate from the commissar at pseudoScientific unAmerican:

    the author acknowledged… he did not effectively convey the points he was trying to make. We believe the lack of clarity made the post insensitive to valid concerns that many readers have about past and existing biases and prejudices in our society.

    following the earlier rounds of criticism of his work, the author and I had come to an agreement about steps that he would take to prevent future misunderstandings. The author, however, failed to take those steps… which caused us to take down the post and remove the author

    Read More
  8. Borachio says:
    @E. C. Muove
    What's the big deal?

    It's not as if the history of science is defined by episodes of powerful people censoring controversial ideas.

    Besides, what has Feynman ever done for science? I mean, compared to hundreds of women?

    “Besides, what has Feynman ever done for science? I mean, compared to hundreds of women?”

    Hear, hear!

    Read More
  9. This is just pathetic. Jogalakar issues a groveling apology to the Ms. Grimsbys of the world with every revelation of Feynman’s normalcy. It’s so servile that it’s unbearably hard to read. And yet he was still fired. Unbefreakinglieveable.

    “The encouraging development is that actions by Feynman – and male society in general – that were considered acceptable or amusing in 1950 would quite rightly cause instant outrage in 2014. We still have a long way to go before both genders achieve parity in science, but the change in attitudes is definitely encouraging.” Of all the mincing, prancing, sycophantic blather…..

    It just goes to show that no amount of abasement will appease these tyrants. Men, get up off your knees. Your going to be cut down anyway, so you might as well go down swinging.

    Read More
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Meh id trade ten middle brow populizers like fenyman for one billy graham. For an alpha graham somehow managed to not try hitting on everything around him.

    Read More
  11. eric says:

    ‘…the propensity to lie on the beach and watch girls.’

    The horror.

    I thought Jogalekar’s piece was unnecessary and inviting retribution. Just shows you can’t compromise with unreasonable people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    "…the propensity to lie on the beach and watch girls."

    That was the worst to hear.

    Next you're going to tell me that Feynman urinated standing up!

  12. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    He got Fired for that? That’s unbelievable!

    If we’ve come to a point where something as mild as this causes a controversy we’re in bad shape.

    It seems like a lot of otherwise intelligent women have gone stir crazy. As a society we’re in some deep trouble.

    Read More
  13. e says:

    My God, you mean Feynman was acting like a male? Imagine that. You know it’s bad when men think that men liking women is “sexist.”

    This business with Feynman having had affairs with two married women? That supposedly makes Feynman a “sexist”? Does Jogalekar think the women had nothing to say about their agreement to have an affair with him?

    Aside from the writer’s spasms about sexism, Scientific American has been going down the rabbit hole for a long time now. Then again, so has Western Civ with all this nonsense Progs push.

    Read More
  14. Anonym says:

    I tend to doubt that Feynman’s actions were representative of 1950s males as a whole. Sleazy PUA the norm then? Most women were more of the “saving themselves for marriage” variety AFAIK. PUA are much more viable in a world of contraception, especially female controlled contraception (the pill).

    Read More
  15. jb says:

    Wait a minute! Since when is accusing a respected dead white male of sexism a firing offense?

    I read Jogalekar’s Feynman post, and I see little in it to offend even the most delicate of PC sensibilities. Can someone point out the “insensitivity” and “lack of clarity” that the editor is so upset about? I see nothing but mild criticism of Feynman and 1950′s America. I think SA was just looking for an excuse to fire Jogalekar over the Summers and Wade posts.

    Read More
  16. The PC Left will not stand for politically incorrect behavior from someone they see as a person of the Right. Now, if the person nailing married women and hitting on anything that can’t get away quickly enough is the Democratic POTUS, then it’s no big whoop. In fact, good Progressive women say things like, “I’d blow him to keep abortion legal.

    Read More
  17. syonredux says:

    Meh:” id trade ten middle brow populizers like fenyman for one billy graham. For an alpha graham somehow managed to not try hitting on everything around him.”

    Feynman was slightly more than a “middle brow popularizer”:

    “Richard Phillips Feynman (/ˈfaɪnmən/; May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. ” (WIKIPEDIA)

    Read More
  18. simon says:

    I’ve been wary of Scientific American ever since it assigned the review of “The Bell Curve” to a longtime personal and ideological enemy of its coauthor, Richard Herrnstein. Needless to say, Kamin took the occasion to trash the book.

    Read More
  19. Maybe those two married gals threw themselves at Feynman
    after seeing how handily he solved the mystery of the
    big O-ring.

    Read More
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Numinous
    You should be happy. The guy is Indian, probably the offspring of an immigrant or H-1B worker.

    You should be happy. The guy is Indian, probably the offspring of an immigrant or H-1B worker.

    He is first generation. Like so many educated Hindus, he came here to study, got a PhD and then a job in the industry. He is most probably on H-1B right now. Only difference is that he is much smarter than his average compatriot.

    Read More
  21. NOTA says:

    Was he getting paid any meaningful amount of money for writing for them? Losing a job you need to pay the bills is a lot more scary than losing a job where you write for exposure and maybe some nominal but unimportant payment. Similarly, in the world of blogs, the impact here is that you no longer get to publish your blog on Scientific American, but you still publish it and anyone who wants to can still read it.
    That’s probably still unpleasant, but it’s not the same as the sort of firing where you end up losing your house and going bankrupt because you lost your job and your name was mud in your field.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Was he getting paid any meaningful amount of money for writing for them? Losing a job you need to pay the bills is a lot more scary than losing a job where you write for exposure and maybe some nominal but unimportant payment.

    He works for a pharma company in Boston. SciAm gig was for exposure and pocket money.
  22. @eric
    '...the propensity to lie on the beach and watch girls.'

    The horror.

    I thought Jogalekar's piece was unnecessary and inviting retribution. Just shows you can't compromise with unreasonable people.

    “…the propensity to lie on the beach and watch girls.”

    That was the worst to hear.

    Next you’re going to tell me that Feynman urinated standing up!

    Read More
  23. Funny, I was eating ribs and hanging out with a guy who worked in Feynman’s field (a generation later) just the other day. While everyone knows that Feynman was a genius and a fun guy, my friend pointed out what a humane person he was. My pal was giving a talk at Caltech, and the dyspeptic Gell-Mann was raking him over the coals for no apparent reason. Feynman, being a true Mensch, stood up for my then-youthful pal; “let the kid talk, Murray.” You have to imagine what it would be like being in your 20s and giving a talk in front of two nobelists, one of whom is out for your blood. Feynman understood this.

    If you don’t mind, Steve, I’d like to send Mandolyna something about this: credit where it is due and all, but SciAm has long since jumped the shark.

    Speaking of Nobelists who are scumbags, one of these days, I’ll write about what a rotten lump of shit Steve Chu turned out to be. Maybe I can work that in. He was the anti-Mensch; a bully and a creep. My first thesis advisor suggested I ask him for a job at one point in time (before the prize); though my life might have been softer had he offered me one, I am glad I didn’t.

    Read More
  24. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The real test of po-faced kill-joy feminazi babble – spouted by both the hatchet-faced brigade and the manginas who hang on to the tails of the Rosa Kleb tendency is their attitude to Benny Hill and all things Benny Hill. The late great British comedy genius was everyman in the truest most literal sense. The perpetually frustrated beta rendered into a chump by the unattainable but oh so available pulchritude coming his way.Such was the nature of Hill’s humor. Such is the nature of the perpetual Y chromosome sex linked evolutionary struggle. Only the flintiest heart cannot find Benny Hill both hiliariously amusing and loveable at the same time. This, therefore, explains the feminista hatred of Hill. The saddest thing of all is to see the manginas falling on withe Benny Hill hate fest- against what we know must be their true selves- in order to pick up a few brownie points on the way.

    Read More
  25. SFG says:

    “Speaking of Nobelists who are scumbags, one of these days, I’ll write about what a rotten lump of shit Steve Chu turned out to be. ”

    Serious question here: aren’t most Great Men assholes? I mean, to be a Great Man you have to be ambitious and extremely determined, which usually isn’t nice if you get in the Great Man’s way. I guess in some areas like science you can be brilliant and get away with being a decent person, but seems like top performers would be jerks more often than not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    David Baltimore comes to mind.

    I am not sure it applies among rank-and-file professors. In my own experience on campus, the troublesome faculty tend to be quasi-sympathetic characters who seem to suffer from 'clinical' problems or people who publish next-to-nothing and devote themselves to institutional politics or playing themselves in lieu of scholarship. The productive researchers are at least cordial if not decent (as a rule).
    , @Scott Locklin
    "Serious question here: aren’t most Great Men assholes? "

    Depends on your definition of asshole. I've known a few nobelists and near nobelists. Gell-Mann apparently didn't think he needed to treat anyone else like they were human beings; a classic "small man" whose character is revealed in dealing with underlings. Chu is much of the same mold. By contrast, Norman Ramsey and Charlie Townes were some of the nicest people I have ever met in any context; genial and comfortable with their exalted stations in life. I can think of a few other guys like Ramsey and Townes who may have done unpleasant things in their personal lives (seducing the wives of colleagues is a common vice among bigshots), but they were not prone to irrational cruelty towards others. There are degrees: Seaborg was kind of a jerk, but it was a righteous jerkidude meant to cleanse junior scientists of weakness. He was pleasant most of the time, and not prone to mindless cruelty. I think the correct attitude was conveyed to me by another former LBL director: "Grad students have underdeveloped nervous systems, so they can't feel pain. You let them graduate when their nervous systems have developed to the point where can feel pain."

  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NOTA
    Was he getting paid any meaningful amount of money for writing for them? Losing a job you need to pay the bills is a lot more scary than losing a job where you write for exposure and maybe some nominal but unimportant payment. Similarly, in the world of blogs, the impact here is that you no longer get to publish your blog on Scientific American, but you still publish it and anyone who wants to can still read it.
    That's probably still unpleasant, but it's not the same as the sort of firing where you end up losing your house and going bankrupt because you lost your job and your name was mud in your field.

    Was he getting paid any meaningful amount of money for writing for them? Losing a job you need to pay the bills is a lot more scary than losing a job where you write for exposure and maybe some nominal but unimportant payment.

    He works for a pharma company in Boston. SciAm gig was for exposure and pocket money.

    Read More
  27. Wait, Ashutosh Jogalekar? Sounds like one of those white Asians.
    Un-protect him! Under the bus, honkie!

    Read More
  28. Art Deco says: • Website

    I think Horace Freeland Judson said a generation ago that Scientific American‘s editorial line by 1963 was liberal by default.

    If you recall what the magazine was like as late as 1985, the condition it’s been in these last 20 years is distressing. It bears much more resemblance to Discover than to the Scientific American of old.

    Read More
  29. Art Deco says: • Website
    @SFG
    "Speaking of Nobelists who are scumbags, one of these days, I’ll write about what a rotten lump of shit Steve Chu turned out to be. "

    Serious question here: aren't most Great Men assholes? I mean, to be a Great Man you have to be ambitious and extremely determined, which usually isn't nice if you get in the Great Man's way. I guess in some areas like science you can be brilliant and get away with being a decent person, but seems like top performers would be jerks more often than not.

    David Baltimore comes to mind.

    I am not sure it applies among rank-and-file professors. In my own experience on campus, the troublesome faculty tend to be quasi-sympathetic characters who seem to suffer from ‘clinical’ problems or people who publish next-to-nothing and devote themselves to institutional politics or playing themselves in lieu of scholarship. The productive researchers are at least cordial if not decent (as a rule).

    Read More
  30. Abe says: • Website

    Call this Project 120. I tend to believe human intelligence evolves through a series of a punctuated equilibriums. A stable culture is only possible when the highly intelligent as well as the only moderately intelligent maintain consensus on the large, important questions. When that no longer holds the smarter set try to exterminate the duller set for various cultural reasons (political, theological, ideological) and, if successful, constitute the new (higher) mean intelligence from which this process can repeat itself.

    The most recent equilibrium was one where those of average intelligence could accomplish moderately complex tasks with their hands involving some abstraction and numeracy, but where overall the job was not too mentally taxing (farming, carpentry, masonry). For a while these average people believed in the same things as their intellectual and social superiors (The Gospel, as well as various social applications of its teachings in terms of sexual mores, personal hygiene, community involvement and charitable work, etc.) .

    Now the new equilibria will be the TED Conference streaming, micro-aggression spotting, Daily Show and Colbert Report-watching 115-120 IQ set, who do more abstract and intelletcually demanding work. Their destiny is to exterminate the Intelligent Design-believing, climate change-doubting 95-100 IQ set within their own ethny (global free trade + open borders being a nice way for “softly” accomplishing this goal) while liquidating anyone obviously smarter than they are (135+ IQ ) who deviate from the new cultural baseline they are trying to establish.

    Yeah, it’s easy to hate SWPLs now, but just remember that in 100-500 years they too will be purged, probably by a trans-species cyborg collective who looks down their noses at anyone who can’t recognize Q0d’Th’393D (a multi-stage competition consisting of evolving your own species from the single cell stage until you create the organism most adapted for scoring high on ‘Doom II’) as THE REAL ‘beautiful game’.

    Read More
  31. @SFG
    "Speaking of Nobelists who are scumbags, one of these days, I’ll write about what a rotten lump of shit Steve Chu turned out to be. "

    Serious question here: aren't most Great Men assholes? I mean, to be a Great Man you have to be ambitious and extremely determined, which usually isn't nice if you get in the Great Man's way. I guess in some areas like science you can be brilliant and get away with being a decent person, but seems like top performers would be jerks more often than not.

    “Serious question here: aren’t most Great Men assholes? ”

    Depends on your definition of asshole. I’ve known a few nobelists and near nobelists. Gell-Mann apparently didn’t think he needed to treat anyone else like they were human beings; a classic “small man” whose character is revealed in dealing with underlings. Chu is much of the same mold. By contrast, Norman Ramsey and Charlie Townes were some of the nicest people I have ever met in any context; genial and comfortable with their exalted stations in life. I can think of a few other guys like Ramsey and Townes who may have done unpleasant things in their personal lives (seducing the wives of colleagues is a common vice among bigshots), but they were not prone to irrational cruelty towards others. There are degrees: Seaborg was kind of a jerk, but it was a righteous jerkidude meant to cleanse junior scientists of weakness. He was pleasant most of the time, and not prone to mindless cruelty. I think the correct attitude was conveyed to me by another former LBL director: “Grad students have underdeveloped nervous systems, so they can’t feel pain. You let them graduate when their nervous systems have developed to the point where can feel pain.”

    Read More
  32. dcite says:

    “– spouted by both the hatchet-faced brigade and the manginas who hang on to the tails of the Rosa Kleb tendency is their attitude to Benny Hill and all things Benny Hill. ”

    If you wish to celebrate maleness, there are better fun-guys than Benny Hill whose doctor was a gynecologist (so I read), and whose hormonal propensities were discretely hidden. In other words, he was of uncertain gender.

    Read More
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    One can argue from the narrow minded PC perspective that Ashutosh Jogalekar’s firing was racist, as he is non-white.

    Read More
  34. Brutusale says:

    A lot of “great men” on college campuses are cads of the first water. But with the mesmerized nubiles batting their eyes, a la the coeds in Indiana Jones’ classroom in Raiders of the Lost Ark, it’s a target rich environment.

    Read More
  35. […] from Scientific American for preferring scientific inquiry to New Creationism; see here, here, here, […]

    Read More
  36. […] Scientific American chastised Jogelekar for his politically incorrect views, and then fired him. How […]

    Read More
  37. Jo S'more says:

    Do you notice there is no criticism of the sluts he seduced?

    So, he liked sluts. So what.

    Read More
  38. […] o novoj penetraciji najagresivnijeg kulturnog marksizma u sferu znanosti možete pročitati ovdje i […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored