The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
James D. Watson Still Banned from Polite Society
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Jerry Coyne points out that an invitation to James D. Watson to lecture at NYU has been crimestopped:

We are writing to inform you that the lecture by Professor James Watson, scheduled for September 12, 2016 has been cancelled. We received the attached letter that had been written by medical and graduate students at NYU School of Medicine to express their feelings regarding the invitation of Dr. Watson for this distinguished lecture. In the letter, the students raised the point that Dr. Watson had made public claims to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals. We agree with the students that this runs counter to our mission of diversity and inclusion at NYU Langone Medical Center and have thus elected to cancel the lecture.

 

 
Hide 277 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Fat Lives Matter!

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    it´s funny how they include obese people and women in their argument. Yet everybody knows when Watson would have made double the amount of funny remarks about women and and obese people, but no remark about black people there would be no problem at all
  2. What the hell would this ancient white asshole know about heredity anyways

    • Replies: @Kyle a
    Good question. More importantly, what the hell would a bunch of young minorities know about anything?
  3. “Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you, not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.”

    – Orwell, 1984

    • Replies: @syonredux
    I tend to think that Watson will be remembered but only as the devil-figure in the Rosalind Franklin story.....
  4. diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals

    That’s a ‘girly-boy’ SJW interpretation of Watson’s remarks — more evidence that the rot runs pretty damn deep.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    More importantly, it's dishonest. Girly-boy interpretations can be honest but this one is not.
    , @Kylie
    "That’s a ‘girly-boy’ SJW interpretation of Watson’s remarks — more evidence that the rot runs pretty damn deep."

    Deep and distaff. Very little 'boy' about it.

  5. Watson’s comments about blacks are usually cited as the reason for shunning him. But maybe it has more to do with these comments he made at an earlier date.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Thank you, that's quite a read. If I may excerpt...

    n an interview profile for the magazine [Esquire] Watson asks rhetorically, “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” He answered: “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.”
     

    Touched the third rail, right there.

    “I’ve wondered why people aren’t more intelligent,” Watson says. “Why isn’t everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be that societies work best when there’s a mixture of ability – the bright people would never be an army.”

    Watson’s remarks were part of the magazine’s...interviews with famous and notable people who reveal “What I’ve Learned” from life. Included are interviews with Katie Couric, actor Peter O’Toole and magicians Penn & Teller, among others.

     

    I wonder what Katie Couric learned from life as compared to the discoverer of the Double Helix.

    Watson says his own politics have evolved from the left to libertarianism. He said he “turned against the left wing” because “they don’t like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have had bad genes.”
    ...
    “I think now we’re in a terrible situation where we should pay the rich people to have children.” He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.

     

    Maybe that was the third rail.
    , @Anonymous
    And this from your link;

    "Jacobson added, “Obviously, the impact of anti-Semitism through the century has been devastating to Jews"

    I don't mean to be indifferent to the suffering of Jews who were murdered in WW2 or their descendants who live with the nightmares of those events, but this argument is, if not debatable, then as least subject to qualification.

    An aspergerian or autistic could argue that because of severe selective pressure, the Jewish genome has benefitted from the most ruthless culling of any in the world today. Where else did that high IQ come from if not from the fact that most of the Jews who could afford to emigrate before WW2 came from the most talented, wealthiest class and they brought their smarts with them.

    But Jacobson doesn't believe in the possibility for any genetic basis for intelligence to begin with, so this argument wouldn't offer any consoling, redeeming or explanatory value for him.
  6. He’s welcome here in our rough company . Completely ot :

    from a poem by Christopher Marlowe who IIRC was murdered in a tavern in a dispute over the bill .

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/44675

    • Replies: @Cloud of Probable Matricide
    "from a poem by Christopher Marlowe who IIRC was murdered in a tavern in a dispute over the bill ."

    Wow! I read that as "HRC" - I was thinking that she's bad and old, but not that bad and old.
  7. made public claims to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals.

    Wait … what? Obese? Is bariphobia the next civil rights thing? World War lb. Lena Dnham can be the mascot.

    • Replies: @George
    I am waiting for svelte WASP ladies to take up the bariphobia cause.
  8. They “rehabilitated” Edward O. Wilson to try and prop up Neo-Darwinism, there might still be time for Watson …

    • Replies: @David
    Even if he engages in crimethought, he also repents earnestly.

    Towards the end of Social Conquest of Earth, Wilson concludes that religion is a mechanism of tribal cohesion. Then he goes on to hope that we can all just forget about religions and our tribal past -- without jettisoning all their great literature! -- to embrace a one-big-happy-race world.

    But he put that Noble Hope at the end of a book that argues that our very nature is to compete as groups and within groups, that the moral angst of the duel loyalty is the physiological struggle manifested in millennia of great art.

    But we can change!
    , @Unladen Swallow
    Unlikely, Wilson was still relatively young when he crossed the Academic Left, and it still took him a decade and a half to be "rehabilitated", James Watson was pushing 80 when he crossed them, assuming the Academic Left is interested in bringing him back into the fold and assuming he still is alive, he would be in his nineties.

    They are nearly the same age, but Watson committed his offense over 30 years later. Plus, Wilson wasn't brought in to "prop up" Darwinism, it was to become the new intellectual face of environmentalism, replacing his buddy Paul Ehrlich who had become an embarrassment to the establishment. Wilson has barely talked sociobiology since co-authoring "The Ants" with Bert Holldobler in 1990, all his books written since then, not including some spinoffs of "The Ants" have been environmentally oriented books.

  9. “But I’m not made to be a seducer, or to make faces at myself in the mirror. I was badly made and don’t have the looks to strut my stuff in front of pretty sluts. I’ve been cheated of a nice body and face, or even normal proportions. I am deformed, spit out from my mother’s womb prematurely and so badly formed that dogs bark at me as I limp by them. I’m left with nothing to do in this weak, idle peacetime, unless I want to look at my lumpy shadow in the sun and sing about that.”

    Since I can’t amuse myself by being a lover, I’ve decided to become a villain. I’ve set dangerous plans in motion, using lies, drunken prophecies, and stories about dreams to set my brother Clarence and the king against each other. If King Edward is as honest and fair-minded as I am deceitful and cruel, then Clarence is going to be locked away in prison today because of a prophecy that
    “G”

    Edward interprets “G” to mean George, Duke of Clarence, though ironically it could just as well mean Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
    “G” will murder Edward’s children. Oh, time to hide what I’m thinking—here comes Clarence.

    What great drama and every word a lie . The Tudors in truth had no claim to the thrown and Richard was rightfully king . The poisonous , grasping Woodvilles and the usurping Tudors are with us still but there is no brave and loyal Richard to defend our cause , our liberties .

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Why must there always be a pissing scene?

    When will the directors ever get over the idea that showing the protagonist pissing is cool & edgy? and not just stale & conformist?

    Feh.
  10. @Rob McX
    Watson's comments about blacks are usually cited as the reason for shunning him. But maybe it has more to do with these comments he made at an earlier date.

    Thank you, that’s quite a read. If I may excerpt…

    n an interview profile for the magazine [Esquire] Watson asks rhetorically, “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” He answered: “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.”

    Touched the third rail, right there.

    “I’ve wondered why people aren’t more intelligent,” Watson says. “Why isn’t everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be that societies work best when there’s a mixture of ability – the bright people would never be an army.”

    Watson’s remarks were part of the magazine’s…interviews with famous and notable people who reveal “What I’ve Learned” from life. Included are interviews with Katie Couric, actor Peter O’Toole and magicians Penn & Teller, among others.

    I wonder what Katie Couric learned from life as compared to the discoverer of the Double Helix.

    Watson says his own politics have evolved from the left to libertarianism. He said he “turned against the left wing” because “they don’t like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have had bad genes.”

    “I think now we’re in a terrible situation where we should pay the rich people to have children.” He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.

    Maybe that was the third rail.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Katie Couric learned how not to be ostracized...
    , @Lurker

    He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.
     
    Not all rich people are above average IQ, not all high IQ people are rich. Perhaps we could, like, you know, test peoples IQ somehow? Just saying.
    , @Pat the Rat
    The strange thing is that very smart people often make very poor parents. All their obsessing over this and that gives little time for children, if they have any at all.

    A society with many very smart people would probably have many emotionally stunted and self obsessed loners as children and have trouble reproducing itself.

    That has probably already happened in the west where the birthrate of aristocrats and technocrats has been reduced for centuries. This is to some degree anecdotal, although I have read that the birth rate of wealthy Anglicans was far below Catholics.

    In fact I have also read that Eugenics was not and never really was about raising intelligence or purifying the race, etc etc etc, (mouth open and gagging)....

    ...but about destroying the fecundity of the lower classes by attacking their offspring as sub human and reinforcing social and political control over them by the wealthy.

    Unfortunately for the super intelligent Hitler with his average intelligence destroyed Eugenics as an idea in the west. Never mind say the super intelligent we can destroy the family with the sexual revolution and abortion, I prefer sexual decadence to uniforms and medals anyway.
  11. In an MA Applied Linguistics program at a well-regarded university I once tried to base a thesis proposal on an analysis of how language is used to promote the elite’s narrative on race/HBD at the expense of scholars like Watson as well as democratic citizenries’ generally by denying them access to information they need to make informed decisions. This approach to linguistic analysis is called critical discourse analysis (CDA). It’s very much like what Sailer has been doing with lefty news articles over the past 20 years. My proposal was flatly rejected without my being given a chance to answer any questions first. I was told in no uncertain terms that CDA could only be used from a leftwing perspective and that Watson was ignorant. CDA has only ever been used from a leftwing perspective, it’s true, and I think the particular professor who expressed this view (and who was from Asia not the West) could not get her head around the idea that right-wing perspectives can also encompass discriminatory perspectives. Ah well.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The left hates it when their intellectual creations are used against them.
    , @gruff
    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.
    , @Anonymous
    That sounds like a thesis with great potential for contributing insight.

    Could you recommend a book or article on CDA? I've never heard of it but it sounds very interesting. I have no background in linguistics. If you'd be comfortable posting your proposal, I (and probably other commenters) would love to read that, as well.
  12. Ah, yes. An auto-da-fe of the 21st century Leftist Inquisition. Watson, discoverer of DNA, thrown out of a medical school for comments nearly a decade old that contradict the official dogma of the Diversity Cult.

    The Age of Enlightenment is dead, people. The scientific method has been subordinated to the neo-communist religion of the Left.

    Next time you hear some lefty criticizing the Medieval Church for the Inquisition or the treatment of Galileo, laugh in his face. Next time you hear some lefty like Obama piously claim the authority of “science,” or denounce the Republicans as “anti-scientific,” you should be rolling on the floor with spasms of uncontrollable, hysterical laughter.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Watson didn't discover DNA. Crick and Watson discovered its structure.
    , @Percy Gryce
    It's arguable that the Church has more respect for science than the Left does now:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/opinion/pondering-miracles-medical-and-religious.html
  13. And ye shall know the truth and that is fine and dandy.
    And ye shall speak the truth and that shall set your free … from many enjoyable things.
    That is why mankind has teeth, to form a protective hedge around the tongue … borrowed from James 1:19 and silently modified.

  14. If James D. Watson is a 1000 watt bulb then the student average at NYU School of Medicine is 100 watts. Just because you are against “racism” (code word for dispossess whitey) and want to save the planet, does not raise your IQ or improve your doctoring skills. I am wary of any young doctor. They must be at least 45.

  15. If James D. Watson is a 1000 watt bulb then the student average at NYU School of Medicine is 100 watts.

    Nah, more like 5 watts. Watson ranks as a titan in the history of science.

    And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    "And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."
    are they as bright as other STEM people?
    , @Johnny Smoggins
    'And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."

    As the field of medicine has become increasingly feminized it has been dumbed down and is now more emotion, less scientific based. This is why there's been such a rise in alternative medicine, faith based healing and other quackery that appeals to women. As Heartiste once said, the idea of "magic" and hidden knowledge i.e. the zodiac, is "chick crack"
  16. “… that this runs counter to our mission of diversity and inclusion at NYU Langone Medical Center and have thus elected to cancel the lecture.”

    Uh, Ok? You promote diversity and inclusion, but you refuse to include someone with an opinion diverse from yours. How’s that diversity and inclusion stuff supposed to work again?

    • Agree: Hubbub
    • Replies: @gruff
    It's a useful fracture point, that diversity thinking doesn't actually believe its own rhetoric. Political opinions cannot be diverse. Human cultures are diverse but not actually different - they can be mixed together willy nilly with no ill effects because they are all the same apart from the different foods and funny clothing.
    , @Paul Yarbles
    I was going to point out this funny-and-sad quote too.

    Yes, to the writers of this cowardly memo diversity only means one thing: non-white male. Well, maybe we have to throw lean into the mix now: non-lean white male.

    Diversity of opinion is anti-diversity. One's head spins.
    , @Jack D
    "Diversity" has an Orwellian meaning. It doesn't actually mean diversity at all. It's a code word for "anyone other than straight white males". Their mission is not science, but to increase the appeal of the place to people who are not SWMs. So Watson speaking would go against their mission. It's perfectly clear and sensible once you understand the true current goals of the organization, which they don't even try very hard to hide. "Diversity" has nothing to do with actual diversity of opinion. It's expected that all "diverse" peoples adhere to the platform of the Democrat Party, which they support almost unanimously.
    , @Olorin
    Just compare the etymological roots of "diversity" and "diversion."

    The medical establishment is bashing on about "diversity" as a diversion from what they are up to. Which is turning every aspect of our embodied existence--our life, the ills flesh is heir to, our healing, our habits, our genes--into a new form of real estate to be managed for corporate profit.

    This is in the very DNA of Near Eastern/Mediterranean/Jewish agricultural urban civilization and its Abrahamic offshoots: real estate and mercantilization.

    The writing has been on the wall on this one since before I was in grad school. In 1980, SCOTUS granted Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty a patent on a life form. This was the highest court in our land declaring living organisms to be intellectual property, which is to say real estate, which could be managed for profit.

    A lot of the current nonsense we are tsunami'ed with regarding race and "diversity" is diversion from what is going on behind the scenes by Big Pharma (often the same companies as Big Agriculture). Medical schools attract in the main minds that are not all that brilliant and turn them into technicians with a lot more respect and awe than they deserve. They are a priestly caste whose powers are inflated, largely untouchable, and protected by the lugal-state.

    We can't even get a good idea of how many maimings and deaths they cause through misdiagnosis, misdrugging/adverse drug reactions, unnecessary procedures, infections, and the like. It is a horrific cabal with more and more power--exponentially increased and solidified through Obamacare. They cause many more deaths than guns, auto accidents, etc., annually...but somehow get to slip past notice.

    Because James Watson said something about fatsos.
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    First time I’ve heard of the ‘obese’ being mentioned on the Totem Pole – perhaps they are supporting, as in holding up, the whole darned thing.
    Anyway, isn’t the term ‘obese’ a bit strong in itself, I thought a more PC term would be in order, something on the lines of ‘barioatric’

    • LOL: Perspective
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Bodyful
    , @Broski
    Milo's "stop being fat" campaign seems to have created a new category of the oppressed.
  18. He stole the idea for DNA from African scientists anyway…

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman , but close enough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
  19. @Dr. X
    Ah, yes. An auto-da-fe of the 21st century Leftist Inquisition. Watson, discoverer of DNA, thrown out of a medical school for comments nearly a decade old that contradict the official dogma of the Diversity Cult.

    The Age of Enlightenment is dead, people. The scientific method has been subordinated to the neo-communist religion of the Left.

    Next time you hear some lefty criticizing the Medieval Church for the Inquisition or the treatment of Galileo, laugh in his face. Next time you hear some lefty like Obama piously claim the authority of "science," or denounce the Republicans as "anti-scientific," you should be rolling on the floor with spasms of uncontrollable, hysterical laughter.

    Watson didn’t discover DNA. Crick and Watson discovered its structure.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    A distinction without difference.
  20. “had made public claims to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals”: I don’t think that’s even English, is it?

    • Replies: @Broski
    I don't think it means what they think it means.
    , @Anonymous
    Grammar is racist
  21. @eah
    diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals

    That's a 'girly-boy' SJW interpretation of Watson's remarks -- more evidence that the rot runs pretty damn deep.

    More importantly, it’s dishonest. Girly-boy interpretations can be honest but this one is not.

  22. @RW
    In an MA Applied Linguistics program at a well-regarded university I once tried to base a thesis proposal on an analysis of how language is used to promote the elite's narrative on race/HBD at the expense of scholars like Watson as well as democratic citizenries' generally by denying them access to information they need to make informed decisions. This approach to linguistic analysis is called critical discourse analysis (CDA). It's very much like what Sailer has been doing with lefty news articles over the past 20 years. My proposal was flatly rejected without my being given a chance to answer any questions first. I was told in no uncertain terms that CDA could only be used from a leftwing perspective and that Watson was ignorant. CDA has only ever been used from a leftwing perspective, it's true, and I think the particular professor who expressed this view (and who was from Asia not the West) could not get her head around the idea that right-wing perspectives can also encompass discriminatory perspectives. Ah well.

    The left hates it when their intellectual creations are used against them.

  23. @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    Fat Lives Matter!

    it´s funny how they include obese people and women in their argument. Yet everybody knows when Watson would have made double the amount of funny remarks about women and and obese people, but no remark about black people there would be no problem at all

  24. @PiltdownMan

    If James D. Watson is a 1000 watt bulb then the student average at NYU School of Medicine is 100 watts.
     
    Nah, more like 5 watts. Watson ranks as a titan in the history of science.

    And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM.

    “And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM.”
    are they as bright as other STEM people?

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    Probably not, because they can get by without doing math, but they might be the most competitive.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Razib Khan answers all your questions...

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/
  25. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    They "rehabilitated" Edward O. Wilson to try and prop up Neo-Darwinism, there might still be time for Watson ...

    Even if he engages in crimethought, he also repents earnestly.

    Towards the end of Social Conquest of Earth, Wilson concludes that religion is a mechanism of tribal cohesion. Then he goes on to hope that we can all just forget about religions and our tribal past — without jettisoning all their great literature! — to embrace a one-big-happy-race world.

    But he put that Noble Hope at the end of a book that argues that our very nature is to compete as groups and within groups, that the moral angst of the duel loyalty is the physiological struggle manifested in millennia of great art.

    But we can change!

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Yes, a lot of those evolutionary biologists like Wilson and Pinker want to have their HBD cake and eat it. Sure, we're all a living reflection of our genetic differences, but somehow we can all be PC at the same time, it seems.
  26. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    They "rehabilitated" Edward O. Wilson to try and prop up Neo-Darwinism, there might still be time for Watson ...

    Unlikely, Wilson was still relatively young when he crossed the Academic Left, and it still took him a decade and a half to be “rehabilitated”, James Watson was pushing 80 when he crossed them, assuming the Academic Left is interested in bringing him back into the fold and assuming he still is alive, he would be in his nineties.

    They are nearly the same age, but Watson committed his offense over 30 years later. Plus, Wilson wasn’t brought in to “prop up” Darwinism, it was to become the new intellectual face of environmentalism, replacing his buddy Paul Ehrlich who had become an embarrassment to the establishment. Wilson has barely talked sociobiology since co-authoring “The Ants” with Bert Holldobler in 1990, all his books written since then, not including some spinoffs of “The Ants” have been environmentally oriented books.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Should also bear in mind Rosalind Franklin's status as a "feminist martyr." To feminists, Watson serves as a convenient bogeyman, the patriarchal oppressor who keeps women from doing great things in STEM.
    , @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Good points. Time flies, I had not realized they were both 90-ish. Hope I'm that vital at their age ...

    [iSteve -- where no joke is too esoteric to be nit-picked to death *lulz*]
  27. @RW
    In an MA Applied Linguistics program at a well-regarded university I once tried to base a thesis proposal on an analysis of how language is used to promote the elite's narrative on race/HBD at the expense of scholars like Watson as well as democratic citizenries' generally by denying them access to information they need to make informed decisions. This approach to linguistic analysis is called critical discourse analysis (CDA). It's very much like what Sailer has been doing with lefty news articles over the past 20 years. My proposal was flatly rejected without my being given a chance to answer any questions first. I was told in no uncertain terms that CDA could only be used from a leftwing perspective and that Watson was ignorant. CDA has only ever been used from a leftwing perspective, it's true, and I think the particular professor who expressed this view (and who was from Asia not the West) could not get her head around the idea that right-wing perspectives can also encompass discriminatory perspectives. Ah well.

    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It doesn't work because most leftist are completely lacking in insight. When you attempt to hoist them on their own petard, they just stare at you blankly and tell you that what they are doing is COMPLETELY different and has nothing to do with the nonsense that you are trying to peddle.
    , @Dr. X

    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.
     
    Well, I have to say, I've tried exactly that mysef, and let me assure you that the outcome wasn't much fun at all.
    , @Broski
    Ridicule is your greatest weapon.

    Make sure your tactics entertain your supporters.
  28. Makes complete sense to me. Why allow any old white-privileged racist male (with his structurally racist thoughts and structurally racist mind) to sully the consciousness of those young geniuses comprising today’s affirmative-action mobs?

    What would a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who discovered DNA’s double helix even bring to the discussion? Come on. It’s the Current Year!

    James Watson should just quit the hard sciences (so racist!) and just voluntary submit himself now to be brainwashed with the august scholarship and anti-racist Marxism of Prof. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Critical Race Theory co-founder and promoter of ‘intersectionality’. It’s all he really needs to know, anyway

    • Replies: @rod1963
    Watson should give the system a big middle-finger and just retire and enjoy life. The system is rotting anyways, our universities, even the Ivies are cesspools of PC/MC and totalitarian thought. Heck the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it's really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.

    In regards to polite society, who wants to hang around a bunch of pansies and passive-aggressive freaks who secretly despise one another and get their kudos? I wouldn't.

    Watson earned his place in history and science and towers above these ponces and poppinjays.
    , @guest
    It's all anyone needs to know. "Critical theory" is the sorcerer's stone of knowledge. Know it, and you don't need to know anything else, ever.
  29. @The Alarmist

    "... that this runs counter to our mission of diversity and inclusion at NYU Langone Medical Center and have thus elected to cancel the lecture."
     
    Uh, Ok? You promote diversity and inclusion, but you refuse to include someone with an opinion diverse from yours. How's that diversity and inclusion stuff supposed to work again?

    It’s a useful fracture point, that diversity thinking doesn’t actually believe its own rhetoric. Political opinions cannot be diverse. Human cultures are diverse but not actually different – they can be mixed together willy nilly with no ill effects because they are all the same apart from the different foods and funny clothing.

  30. After Charles Murray had a chance to speak at Virginia Tech, things were changed to make sure such things never happen again.

    • Replies: @John Galt
    I will not be doing any alumni giving as a result of this. Murray is nowhere close to an extremist. I honestly didn't notice a strain of SJW's in the business school during my time there and I graduated in the last 10 years.
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob McX
    Watson's comments about blacks are usually cited as the reason for shunning him. But maybe it has more to do with these comments he made at an earlier date.

    And this from your link;

    “Jacobson added, “Obviously, the impact of anti-Semitism through the century has been devastating to Jews”

    I don’t mean to be indifferent to the suffering of Jews who were murdered in WW2 or their descendants who live with the nightmares of those events, but this argument is, if not debatable, then as least subject to qualification.

    An aspergerian or autistic could argue that because of severe selective pressure, the Jewish genome has benefitted from the most ruthless culling of any in the world today. Where else did that high IQ come from if not from the fact that most of the Jews who could afford to emigrate before WW2 came from the most talented, wealthiest class and they brought their smarts with them.

    But Jacobson doesn’t believe in the possibility for any genetic basis for intelligence to begin with, so this argument wouldn’t offer any consoling, redeeming or explanatory value for him.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Where else did that high IQ come from if not from the fact that most of the Jews who could afford to emigrate before WW2 came from the most talented, wealthiest class and they brought their smarts with them.
     
    I'm sorry but you have this completely backward. If you notice, Carlos Slim has no desire to leave Mexico - it is the poor and desperate who emigrate.

    E. European Jews evolved in eugenic conditions but they planted the seeds of their own poverty by reproducing too much (the Jewish population of Poland increased something like tenfold from 1700 to 1900). It's one thing for a small minority to live by its wits but a society only needs so many middlemen. Not only did this oversupply dilute the opportunities available, but it also triggered resentment, discrimination, etc. (as long as the US had only a tiny Jewish minority, they were very well liked - it's when they start showing up in large #s that anti-Semitism gets going).


    If you live in a poor society (E. Europe, China, etc.) you can be perfectly smart yet poor as a church mouse. When these seeds were replanted on fertile ground, they thrived.

    , @Broski
    A key point, from the Darwinian perspective, is that the global Jewish population is still several million below its 1940 peak.

    As a result, despite vast financial success and the acquisition of political power in western countries, the global diaspora has had a poor century in reproductive fitness terms.
  32. I imagine the new academic protectorate of free speech, the University of Chicago, will invite him to speak. But I sincerely doubt it.

    Woe to the conquered!

    • Replies: @dearieme
    It might. Isn't he a Uni Chicago man?
    , @Hibernian
    IIRC, their recently announced policy is to refrain from coddling their students as much as other elite schools coddle theirs. I don't think they'll invite Watson or anyone else on the Right who is very controversial. Inviting Jim Webb, which their Institute of Politics (led by none other than David Axelrod) did, is about as far as they'll go.
  33. Here are some of his thought crimes:

    “If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her.”

    “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”

    “People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.”

    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 you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.
     
    To be fair, this is a shitty thing to say.
    , @Lurker

    If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her.
     
    This is standard leftist nonsense. It's apparently evil to abort a child for perceived problems but a woman's right to choose if she thinks it will interfere with that party she was going to or that vacation she just booked.
  34. @415 reasons
    What the hell would this ancient white asshole know about heredity anyways

    Good question. More importantly, what the hell would a bunch of young minorities know about anything?

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RW
    In an MA Applied Linguistics program at a well-regarded university I once tried to base a thesis proposal on an analysis of how language is used to promote the elite's narrative on race/HBD at the expense of scholars like Watson as well as democratic citizenries' generally by denying them access to information they need to make informed decisions. This approach to linguistic analysis is called critical discourse analysis (CDA). It's very much like what Sailer has been doing with lefty news articles over the past 20 years. My proposal was flatly rejected without my being given a chance to answer any questions first. I was told in no uncertain terms that CDA could only be used from a leftwing perspective and that Watson was ignorant. CDA has only ever been used from a leftwing perspective, it's true, and I think the particular professor who expressed this view (and who was from Asia not the West) could not get her head around the idea that right-wing perspectives can also encompass discriminatory perspectives. Ah well.

    That sounds like a thesis with great potential for contributing insight.

    Could you recommend a book or article on CDA? I’ve never heard of it but it sounds very interesting. I have no background in linguistics. If you’d be comfortable posting your proposal, I (and probably other commenters) would love to read that, as well.

    • Replies: @RW
    Here are a couple of links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis

    http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

    Some linguists think CDA is not rigorous enough in that it can be too subjective, and that's probably true, but there are legitimate uses I think. For example: How euphemisms develop under the pressure of a political / elitist ideology that helps reproduce inequality.
    , @RW
    Here are a couple of links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis

    http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

    Some linguists think CDA is not rigorous enough in that it can be too subjective, and that's probably true, but there are legitimate uses I think. For example: How do euphemism develop under the pressure of a political/elitist ideology that helps reproduce inequality and create linguistic taboos that in turn influence the way people think about an issue. If you can't use proper words to analyse an issue, you can't solve it, you can't even think clearly about it.
  36. Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Yeah. In that same post (or in the comments on it) he says "we have no good data" on ethnic differences in intelligence.

    His isn't a full-throated defense of Watson.
    , @AnotherDad

    Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.
     
    I'll say. He comes across as darn near a left-creationist. He isn't say Watson was unfairly Watsoned, he's saying something like "hey it's been a few years ... and maybe he's recanted." Coyne's comments about Watson's comments are dismissive--"no evidence." Not the case. There's plenty of evidence. It's just not firm. What we don't have--yet--is really solid determinative DNA evidence. But that's mostly because we don't yet know all the genes are involved in "intelligence" almost certainly because there are so damn many of them.

    And his commenters ... holy cow, what a bunch of nitwits. The left creationists are really out in force. Why do people like this bother to study evolutionary biology or ... anything! Their brains are impenetrable as cement blocks.

    ~~

    This is not very complicated. And it doesn't take James Watson or a PhD in biology, even a guy with a physics degree like me can figure it out:

    Any trait that commonly varies between people--i.e. is not *fixed* (e.g. ten fingers, ten toes), should vary to at least some extent between population groups.

    This is--i'd say--"just math". Guys and gals are humping all the time; people are dying from this, that or the other thing all the time. If a trait isn't fixed in the population, then every time someone is born or dies the population mean moves. It would be the height of absurd coincidence to have the selection pressures in two different population groups with different geographic\climatic and cultural environments yield the exactly same selection. And, obviously, where the groups' environments and hence their selection pressures are far apart, you'd expect group differences to be further apart.

    A less "just math" and more "bio" corollary:

    "It would be very odd to not have distinct differences in mental traits between population groups separated during these last 10,000 years, given the neolithic revolution and all the follow on development of agriculture, civilization, social stratification, trade, metal work, written languages, bureaucracy, etc. etc."

    What the heck would selection be working on these last 10,000 if not mental traits? I can think of disease resistance very being significant as well. But selection for people with the mental makeup to survive, prosper and leave more offspring in these new environments would be huge.


    It boggles my mind that anyone who thinks they are studying evolution or evolutionary biology can not understand these two points. Or it would boggle my mind, except that life experience has convinced me that most people--even people who think they are studying something--have very little ability and\or desire to think critically, and even less desire to challenge their orthodoxy.
  37. Progressivism is fascism without the guns

    Anyone notice that 2 Americans were just arrested for the recent hacking of FBI, CIA, etc. Weren’t we told it was Putin helping Trump?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37316615

    No MSM reports.

    • Replies: @guest
    They do so have guns. Ask the Branch Davidians.
  38. @PiltdownMan
    Thank you, that's quite a read. If I may excerpt...

    n an interview profile for the magazine [Esquire] Watson asks rhetorically, “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” He answered: “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.”
     

    Touched the third rail, right there.

    “I’ve wondered why people aren’t more intelligent,” Watson says. “Why isn’t everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be that societies work best when there’s a mixture of ability – the bright people would never be an army.”

    Watson’s remarks were part of the magazine’s...interviews with famous and notable people who reveal “What I’ve Learned” from life. Included are interviews with Katie Couric, actor Peter O’Toole and magicians Penn & Teller, among others.

     

    I wonder what Katie Couric learned from life as compared to the discoverer of the Double Helix.

    Watson says his own politics have evolved from the left to libertarianism. He said he “turned against the left wing” because “they don’t like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have had bad genes.”
    ...
    “I think now we’re in a terrible situation where we should pay the rich people to have children.” He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.

     

    Maybe that was the third rail.

    Katie Couric learned how not to be ostracized…

  39. James Watson is still honored in Russia. Last summer he went to Russia, where he was given back his Nobel medal by the tycoon who had bought it, and was received with lots of public acclaim.

    Here he is as the guest of honor on the leading Moscow talk show:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvYSM4R5eb8#t=08m10s

    And the medal ceremony itself:
    http://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/135744/

  40. @Hippopotamusdrome


    made public claims to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals.

     

    Wait ... what? Obese? Is bariphobia the next civil rights thing? World War lb. Lena Dnham can be the mascot.

    I am waiting for svelte WASP ladies to take up the bariphobia cause.

  41. @eah
    diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals

    That's a 'girly-boy' SJW interpretation of Watson's remarks -- more evidence that the rot runs pretty damn deep.

    “That’s a ‘girly-boy’ SJW interpretation of Watson’s remarks — more evidence that the rot runs pretty damn deep.”

    Deep and distaff. Very little ‘boy’ about it.

  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Hey, slacker Sailer, can’t you change your sleep pattern so we on the east coast don’t have to wait till noon to have our pertinent comments posted?? Why not sleep during the day when most of us are at work? Most of your stuff is posted late night anyway. Maybe your doctor can prescribe you some Modafinil? Tell him it’s work related.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    Asking a bit from the dispenser of free ice cream.
  43. @ben tillman
    Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.

    Yeah. In that same post (or in the comments on it) he says “we have no good data” on ethnic differences in intelligence.

    His isn’t a full-throated defense of Watson.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    but isn´t this the point of view one could only wish for as academic mainstream?
    when somebody says "by now nobody knows for sure whether there are genetic IQ differences between the races, so nobody can say that one of the positions on that is 100% false and nobody should fear any consequences for one or another" that´s all one needs!
    After all while there are strong hints there is still no proof that there are racial IQ differences. This might change in the next years, when a growing share of IQ variance can be explained by specific genetic patterns.
  44. his partner, francis crick, also believed in race differences in IQ. I don’t think anyone except isteve readers knows about this. But all you have to do is read his own letters.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    I didn't know that but it's not even remotely surprising that a man of his generation believed in hbd.
  45. @Dave Pinsen
    Yeah. In that same post (or in the comments on it) he says "we have no good data" on ethnic differences in intelligence.

    His isn't a full-throated defense of Watson.

    but isn´t this the point of view one could only wish for as academic mainstream?
    when somebody says “by now nobody knows for sure whether there are genetic IQ differences between the races, so nobody can say that one of the positions on that is 100% false and nobody should fear any consequences for one or another” that´s all one needs!
    After all while there are strong hints there is still no proof that there are racial IQ differences. This might change in the next years, when a growing share of IQ variance can be explained by specific genetic patterns.

  46. • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    That was a great thing for the Russian guy to do.
  47. NYU is ‘polite society’?

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    NYU is ‘polite society’?
     
    My thought as well. It is interesting how much more sway polite society has when it comes to identity politics than in other areas. Maybe it's not polite society calling the tune?
    , @The Alarmist

    "NYU is ‘polite society’?"
     
    Nah! Columbia is polite society ... NYU is a somewhat more ethnic stepchild for pretenders to polite society.
  48. Watson should unload all his crimethoughts in a book, self-published if he can’t find a publisher, before he dies or becomes senile. It would be interesting to read, and fun to see polite society clutching their pearls. What’s he got to lose? He’s already in the black list of disgraced scientists, along with Shockley and others.

    • Agree: ATX Hipster
  49. Indeed, in this particular instance, the Coalition of the Left Fringe groups are it again with denying a person, regardless of their dubious past comments, the opportunity to speak their mind. Of course, those who ought to give Watson his due will not come to the forefront to champion the First Amendment due to tribalism.

    However, NYU has the liberty to engage in free association in this capacity—it can remove, wrongly in this situation IMO, someone from the public discourse. They may invite him and they may disinvite him. Are they hypocritical in that they champion the exchange of ideas, but squash conversation of controversial topics? Absolutely.

    We have the liberty to speak our minds. Dr. Watson is able to discuss his views, just not at NYU. Of course, he should be given that opportunity to speak there.

    But free speech has always had consequences attached to it, and past remarks today come into the forefront on those invited to talk on college campuses.



    I wonder if and when the Alt-Right enforces their value system after America is partitioned from the impending race war, will they enable the remaining SJW’s and “anti-whites” to discuss matters in public, or will they engage in the same actions as NYU as retaliation for previous, alleged malfeasance?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The more open-minded ones would probably allow a broad array of views, but one need merely glance at the comment sections of the al right to realize there's no shortage of totalitarian and dogmatic alt-righters (assuming the vile commenters aren't hasbara)
    , @Brutusale
    We'll then see if those of the "But Science!" Alt-Right will allow themselves to be held to the same standards they hold the "But Feelings!" Left to. But the Left will need more than those "pretty lies" that seem to buttress so many of their arguments.
  50. @Unladen Swallow
    Unlikely, Wilson was still relatively young when he crossed the Academic Left, and it still took him a decade and a half to be "rehabilitated", James Watson was pushing 80 when he crossed them, assuming the Academic Left is interested in bringing him back into the fold and assuming he still is alive, he would be in his nineties.

    They are nearly the same age, but Watson committed his offense over 30 years later. Plus, Wilson wasn't brought in to "prop up" Darwinism, it was to become the new intellectual face of environmentalism, replacing his buddy Paul Ehrlich who had become an embarrassment to the establishment. Wilson has barely talked sociobiology since co-authoring "The Ants" with Bert Holldobler in 1990, all his books written since then, not including some spinoffs of "The Ants" have been environmentally oriented books.

    Should also bear in mind Rosalind Franklin’s status as a “feminist martyr.” To feminists, Watson serves as a convenient bogeyman, the patriarchal oppressor who keeps women from doing great things in STEM.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Not alone was Franklin female but she was also Jewish. I'm sure more people have heard of her by now than of Maurice Wilkins, who did actually win the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.
  51. @BenKenobi
    "Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you, not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed."

    - Orwell, 1984

    I tend to think that Watson will be remembered but only as the devil-figure in the Rosalind Franklin story…..

  52. In short, [Watson] suggested that Africans had genetically-based lower IQs than other groups. That’s not the first provocative, hurtful, and unevidenced thing he’s said.

    This from a blog called “Why Evolution Is True.” What on Earth is going on?

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    what's going on is that Jerry Coyne is a (much) smarter version of PZ Myers and that his evolution advocacy is mostly about attacking christians/creationists/republicans/etc ?
    , @stubb
    What on earth do provocative and hurtful have to do with science? And "unevidenced" is simply a lie.
    , @guest
    It's called political correctness.
  53. One thing a healthy society has is respect for the accomplished old. Such a society gives wide leeway to such distinguished people. Heck, the stereotype of the ranting old man making uncouth remarks and being lovingly adored/tolerated for his frankness used to be a stereotype.

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians? Me thinks that did happen in Rome—-but only in the latter stages of the Empire period.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians?
     
    Justinian treated Belisarius pretty badly (cf. Gibbon), since his victories in battle over the barbarians threatened to show Justinian up, at least in his (and his wife's) mind. That's a sort of rudeness, I guess.

    Similar dynamic at work here, I suspect. Actual achievement doesn't go over real well with those incapable of producing it themselves.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    Yet another validation of the quote about democracy denying its ancestors and hiding its descendants.
  54. @syonredux
    Should also bear in mind Rosalind Franklin's status as a "feminist martyr." To feminists, Watson serves as a convenient bogeyman, the patriarchal oppressor who keeps women from doing great things in STEM.

    Not alone was Franklin female but she was also Jewish. I’m sure more people have heard of her by now than of Maurice Wilkins, who did actually win the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Not alone was Franklin female but she was also Jewish. I’m sure more people have heard of her by now than of Maurice Wilkins, who did actually win the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.
     
    The narrative writes itself:Jewish woman has her discoveries stolen by misogynistic male Gentiles...

    Photograph 51 is an award-winning play by Anna Ziegler. Photograph 51 opened in the West End of London in September 2015.[1] The play is known for its revelation of the working life of Rosalind Franklin and her involvement in the discovery of DNA whilst at King's College London. The title comes from "Photo 51" being the nickname given to an X-ray diffraction image taken by Raymond Gosling in May 1952, under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin.[2]
    The 'bioplay' focuses on the often-overlooked role of x-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.[3][4] This play won the 3rd STAGE International Script Competition in 2008.[5] The one-act play runs for 95-minutes with no intermission.
    The play premiered first in the United States (where it was produced at Ensemble Studio Theatre in New York, Theater J in Washington DC, Seattle Repertory Theatre in Seattle, amongst many others),[6] then in London's Noël Coward Theatre, in the West End, directed by Michael Grandage.[7]

     


    Critical response
    Michael Billington of The Guardian wrote a rave review, commenting that "Nicole Kidman captures the ecstasy of scientific discovery".... "Anna Ziegler's new play asserts the contribution of 1950s chemist Rosalind Franklin to the discovery of DNA and asks: is science still sexist?.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_51_(play)

    Maybe Nicole Kidman will get to reprise her role as Franklin in a film version?
  55. Medical schools these days are almost as bad as sociology departments in their devotion to political correctness.

    Remember: half of new doctors are women now. And they appear to be a very resentful and entitled half–political correctness is their leverage and their revenge.

    • Replies: @Dr. X

    Remember: half of new doctors are women now. And they appear to be a very resentful and entitled half–political correctness is their leverage and their revenge.
     
    I have relatives in medicine, and from their experiences it seems that many (not all) of the female physicians are less decisive than male physicians, and that nearly all of them are unwilling to take on the extraordinary workload and insane hours that most male physicians put in.

    Seems that they like the title, the status, and the money, though.

  56. @Rob McX
    Not alone was Franklin female but she was also Jewish. I'm sure more people have heard of her by now than of Maurice Wilkins, who did actually win the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.

    Not alone was Franklin female but she was also Jewish. I’m sure more people have heard of her by now than of Maurice Wilkins, who did actually win the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.

    The narrative writes itself:Jewish woman has her discoveries stolen by misogynistic male Gentiles…

    Photograph 51 is an award-winning play by Anna Ziegler. Photograph 51 opened in the West End of London in September 2015.[1] The play is known for its revelation of the working life of Rosalind Franklin and her involvement in the discovery of DNA whilst at King’s College London. The title comes from “Photo 51” being the nickname given to an X-ray diffraction image taken by Raymond Gosling in May 1952, under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin.[2]
    The ‘bioplay’ focuses on the often-overlooked role of x-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.[3][4] This play won the 3rd STAGE International Script Competition in 2008.[5] The one-act play runs for 95-minutes with no intermission.
    The play premiered first in the United States (where it was produced at Ensemble Studio Theatre in New York, Theater J in Washington DC, Seattle Repertory Theatre in Seattle, amongst many others),[6] then in London’s Noël Coward Theatre, in the West End, directed by Michael Grandage.[7]

    Critical response
    Michael Billington of The Guardian wrote a rave review, commenting that “Nicole Kidman captures the ecstasy of scientific discovery”…. “Anna Ziegler’s new play asserts the contribution of 1950s chemist Rosalind Franklin to the discovery of DNA and asks: is science still sexist?.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_51_(play)

    Maybe Nicole Kidman will get to reprise her role as Franklin in a film version?

    • Replies: @Olorin

    The narrative writes itself:Jewish woman has her discoveries stolen by misogynistic male Gentiles…
     
    Precisely.

    Sorry, wymmynz and chosenites...but for someone to be nominated for the Nobel Prize, they have to be alive.

    She died in 1958, the prize for this work was awarded in 1962. Allegations of misogyny or sexism on this count are absurd.

    Plenty of men who contributed to significant Nobeloid discoveries died before they could be nominated as well. And since there is often a rather long passage of time between a body of work and its nomination, one of the things that a science or math Nobel awards is longevity.

    Now let's hear a bunch of bitching from the Narrative Gallery about how unjust that is and how every 20 year old female tranny lesbian black mestizo with flippers and eyeballs on stalks should get a science Nobel, coz otherwise it isn't fair.

    Reminds me of the scene in I think it was Pride and Prejudice (or some other Austenia) where Lady Catherine assures her listeners that if she had had any talent whatever for music, she would have been quite the adept.

  57. @The Alarmist

    "... that this runs counter to our mission of diversity and inclusion at NYU Langone Medical Center and have thus elected to cancel the lecture."
     
    Uh, Ok? You promote diversity and inclusion, but you refuse to include someone with an opinion diverse from yours. How's that diversity and inclusion stuff supposed to work again?

    I was going to point out this funny-and-sad quote too.

    Yes, to the writers of this cowardly memo diversity only means one thing: non-white male. Well, maybe we have to throw lean into the mix now: non-lean white male.

    Diversity of opinion is anti-diversity. One’s head spins.

  58. In another decade those like Watson will be incarcerated for expressing such politically incorrect views.

    • Replies: @TheJester
    Incarceration and fines for so-called "hate speech" directed at entitled and protected groups (I can't say minorities because women are entitled and protected) is already de rigueur in Germany, France, Britain, and Canada. "Hate speech" includes saying something insensitive about a protected group, such as pointing out the average IQ of Blacks or the finer points of the Islamic religion.

    We can thank God that we have the First Amendment to our Constitution ... or, we would be in a similar legal fix. But, as James Watson repeatedly rediscovers, social and professional banishment is also a price to pay, even in the United States, as the SJWs sweep our universities, schools, professional organizations, corporations, and government agencies.

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.

    We miss you Peter ...!

  59. @anony-mouse
    NYU is 'polite society'?

    NYU is ‘polite society’?

    My thought as well. It is interesting how much more sway polite society has when it comes to identity politics than in other areas. Maybe it’s not polite society calling the tune?

  60. @Gazoo
    At least Watson got his Nobel Prize back. Sigh.

    http://www.newsweek.com/russian-billionaire-returns-nobel-prize-james-watson-344013

    That was a great thing for the Russian guy to do.

    • Replies: @The Pelican
    You'd expect people who actually lived under communism to appreciate Watson's bravery. Russians used to be shot for saying that kind of thing in the old days.
  61. NYU School of Medicine, eh? And the fastest growing area in medicine is treating people based on genetic differences…….

  62. @PiltdownMan
    Thank you, that's quite a read. If I may excerpt...

    n an interview profile for the magazine [Esquire] Watson asks rhetorically, “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” He answered: “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.”
     

    Touched the third rail, right there.

    “I’ve wondered why people aren’t more intelligent,” Watson says. “Why isn’t everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be that societies work best when there’s a mixture of ability – the bright people would never be an army.”

    Watson’s remarks were part of the magazine’s...interviews with famous and notable people who reveal “What I’ve Learned” from life. Included are interviews with Katie Couric, actor Peter O’Toole and magicians Penn & Teller, among others.

     

    I wonder what Katie Couric learned from life as compared to the discoverer of the Double Helix.

    Watson says his own politics have evolved from the left to libertarianism. He said he “turned against the left wing” because “they don’t like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have had bad genes.”
    ...
    “I think now we’re in a terrible situation where we should pay the rich people to have children.” He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.

     

    Maybe that was the third rail.

    He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.

    Not all rich people are above average IQ, not all high IQ people are rich. Perhaps we could, like, you know, test peoples IQ somehow? Just saying.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Dim rich people are, to a person, rich because of luck.

    There are many poor bright people but IQ highly correlates with low time preference, which highly correlates with wealth.
  63. @whorefinder
    One thing a healthy society has is respect for the accomplished old. Such a society gives wide leeway to such distinguished people. Heck, the stereotype of the ranting old man making uncouth remarks and being lovingly adored/tolerated for his frankness used to be a stereotype.

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians? Me thinks that did happen in Rome----but only in the latter stages of the Empire period.

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians?

    Justinian treated Belisarius pretty badly (cf. Gibbon), since his victories in battle over the barbarians threatened to show Justinian up, at least in his (and his wife’s) mind. That’s a sort of rudeness, I guess.

    Similar dynamic at work here, I suspect. Actual achievement doesn’t go over real well with those incapable of producing it themselves.

    • Replies: @Broski
    Former emperors and their administrations frequently became enemies of the state. It happens in all civilizations.
    , @athEIst
    You're about 500 years off.
  64. @Anonymous
    First time I've heard of the 'obese' being mentioned on the Totem Pole - perhaps they are supporting, as in holding up, the whole darned thing.
    Anyway, isn't the term 'obese' a bit strong in itself, I thought a more PC term would be in order, something on the lines of 'barioatric'

    Bodyful

  65. @David
    Even if he engages in crimethought, he also repents earnestly.

    Towards the end of Social Conquest of Earth, Wilson concludes that religion is a mechanism of tribal cohesion. Then he goes on to hope that we can all just forget about religions and our tribal past -- without jettisoning all their great literature! -- to embrace a one-big-happy-race world.

    But he put that Noble Hope at the end of a book that argues that our very nature is to compete as groups and within groups, that the moral angst of the duel loyalty is the physiological struggle manifested in millennia of great art.

    But we can change!

    Yes, a lot of those evolutionary biologists like Wilson and Pinker want to have their HBD cake and eat it. Sure, we’re all a living reflection of our genetic differences, but somehow we can all be PC at the same time, it seems.

  66. We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It’s not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don’t hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and “obese individuals”.

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham’s appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That’s one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don’t think that something like that didn’t happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn’t affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There’s really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can’t say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That’s just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    What you say is perfectly true but the left in America just spent the last 60 years lecturing us about the evils of McCarthyism so this is all a bit rich coming from them. It's all who-whom with them - blacklists for thee but not for me.
    , @Anonymous
    Do you know the name of the graduate student and who the "others" were? Have not heard this part of the story.
    , @Desiderius

    their moral principles
     
    Pretty sure those aren't what is driving this. They may not even believe that moral principles are possible/relevant.
    , @iffen
    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and “obese individuals”.

    Information like this can sometimes be hard to track down.

    The race stuff is in the article so a person can make up his own mind.

    I am surprised that apparently the one interview was enough to cash him in, especially since he apologized.
    , @jimmyriddle
    >If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too

    Possibly - she did write this in a report, a year before Crick & Watson's announcement:

    “The results suggest a helical structure (which must be very closely packed) containing 2, 3 or 4 co‐axial nucleic acid chains per helical unit, and having the phosphate groups near the outside.”


    But the Nobel can only be shared 3 ways (at most) which doesn't always fit the facts - eg
    in 2013 the Physics prize was shared by Higgs & Englert, when arguably it should have been shared 5 ways with Kibble, Guralnik and Hagen.
    , @Joe Schmoe

    There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

     

    A public university is the government. If a private university doesn't want to let you speak, that is up to them. If it is public, then it is the government prohibiting you from speaking.
    , @Stan Adams

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and “obese individuals”.
     
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+d+watson%22+fat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    His Wikiquote entry is the second result:
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

    Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them.
     
  67. @Corvinus
    Indeed, in this particular instance, the Coalition of the Left Fringe groups are it again with denying a person, regardless of their dubious past comments, the opportunity to speak their mind. Of course, those who ought to give Watson his due will not come to the forefront to champion the First Amendment due to tribalism.

    However, NYU has the liberty to engage in free association in this capacity—it can remove, wrongly in this situation IMO, someone from the public discourse. They may invite him and they may disinvite him. Are they hypocritical in that they champion the exchange of ideas, but squash conversation of controversial topics? Absolutely.

    We have the liberty to speak our minds. Dr. Watson is able to discuss his views, just not at NYU. Of course, he should be given that opportunity to speak there.

    But free speech has always had consequences attached to it, and past remarks today come into the forefront on those invited to talk on college campuses.



    I wonder if and when the Alt-Right enforces their value system after America is partitioned from the impending race war, will they enable the remaining SJW’s and “anti-whites” to discuss matters in public, or will they engage in the same actions as NYU as retaliation for previous, alleged malfeasance?

    The more open-minded ones would probably allow a broad array of views, but one need merely glance at the comment sections of the al right to realize there’s no shortage of totalitarian and dogmatic alt-righters (assuming the vile commenters aren’t hasbara)

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "(assuming the vile commenters aren’t hasbara)"

    That could well be a bigger assumption than you think.
  68. @Lurker

    He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.
     
    Not all rich people are above average IQ, not all high IQ people are rich. Perhaps we could, like, you know, test peoples IQ somehow? Just saying.

    Dim rich people are, to a person, rich because of luck.

    There are many poor bright people but IQ highly correlates with low time preference, which highly correlates with wealth.

    • Replies: @Broski
    There are plenty of dull hardworkers whose good values and enthusiasm for work make them rich. They're not inventing new market exploits or surgical products, however.
  69. @The Alarmist

    "... that this runs counter to our mission of diversity and inclusion at NYU Langone Medical Center and have thus elected to cancel the lecture."
     
    Uh, Ok? You promote diversity and inclusion, but you refuse to include someone with an opinion diverse from yours. How's that diversity and inclusion stuff supposed to work again?

    “Diversity” has an Orwellian meaning. It doesn’t actually mean diversity at all. It’s a code word for “anyone other than straight white males”. Their mission is not science, but to increase the appeal of the place to people who are not SWMs. So Watson speaking would go against their mission. It’s perfectly clear and sensible once you understand the true current goals of the organization, which they don’t even try very hard to hide. “Diversity” has nothing to do with actual diversity of opinion. It’s expected that all “diverse” peoples adhere to the platform of the Democrat Party, which they support almost unanimously.

  70. @Honorary Thief
    He stole the idea for DNA from African scientists anyway...

    Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman , but close enough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    "Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman..."
     
    Even your Wikipedia cite, which in typical Wikipedia fashion stretches the truth a bit in Franklin's favor, doesn't support this canard. Did you even bother reading your cite? If so you might want to consider a course in reading comprehension.

    Franklin was a gifted laboratory worker who created extraordinary x-ray crystallography images. But she didn't have a clue what her images of DNA crystals were suggesting. She misinterpreted them right through the point when Watson and Crick published their work. She was also notoriously difficult to work with. She essentially made life impossible for Wilkins until she left his research group. Franklin played a role in the discovery of the structure of DNA but it was Watson and Crick who actually figured out that structure and went on from there to infer the basic mechanism linking DNA, protein synthesis and genetics.
    , @guest
    In what dictionary can I find the definition of this "stole" of which you speak?
    , @tomv
    Ugh, not this again. Rosalind Franklin insisted that the DNA structure was not helical despite being told so by Crick.

    It would more accurate to say that Franklin "stole" the credit for the famous Phot0 51 in popular belief (repeated in that Discover article) from a white man, Raymond Gosling.

    Feminist canards normally find little purchase here on iSteve. Of course, this is a Jewish feminist canard, and that makes all the difference for some people.
  71. @gruff
    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.

    It doesn’t work because most leftist are completely lacking in insight. When you attempt to hoist them on their own petard, they just stare at you blankly and tell you that what they are doing is COMPLETELY different and has nothing to do with the nonsense that you are trying to peddle.

  72. @gruff
    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.

    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.

    Well, I have to say, I’ve tried exactly that mysef, and let me assure you that the outcome wasn’t much fun at all.

    • Replies: @RW
    There may enough people like us trying to do such scholarship that it's worth considering opening an internet journal dedicated to this kind of research, especially in social science disciplines that have openly discriminated against conservatives - and mostly gotten away with it. What do you think about that idea?
    , @RW
    Don't know if you're still checking this thread but I might have answered my own question: I found something through an old Sailer link on Vdare, to an old Sam Francis link, to an old Nicholas Wade link, to this 2002 Science article: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381
  73. @Anonymous
    And this from your link;

    "Jacobson added, “Obviously, the impact of anti-Semitism through the century has been devastating to Jews"

    I don't mean to be indifferent to the suffering of Jews who were murdered in WW2 or their descendants who live with the nightmares of those events, but this argument is, if not debatable, then as least subject to qualification.

    An aspergerian or autistic could argue that because of severe selective pressure, the Jewish genome has benefitted from the most ruthless culling of any in the world today. Where else did that high IQ come from if not from the fact that most of the Jews who could afford to emigrate before WW2 came from the most talented, wealthiest class and they brought their smarts with them.

    But Jacobson doesn't believe in the possibility for any genetic basis for intelligence to begin with, so this argument wouldn't offer any consoling, redeeming or explanatory value for him.

    Where else did that high IQ come from if not from the fact that most of the Jews who could afford to emigrate before WW2 came from the most talented, wealthiest class and they brought their smarts with them.

    I’m sorry but you have this completely backward. If you notice, Carlos Slim has no desire to leave Mexico – it is the poor and desperate who emigrate.

    E. European Jews evolved in eugenic conditions but they planted the seeds of their own poverty by reproducing too much (the Jewish population of Poland increased something like tenfold from 1700 to 1900). It’s one thing for a small minority to live by its wits but a society only needs so many middlemen. Not only did this oversupply dilute the opportunities available, but it also triggered resentment, discrimination, etc. (as long as the US had only a tiny Jewish minority, they were very well liked – it’s when they start showing up in large #s that anti-Semitism gets going).

    If you live in a poor society (E. Europe, China, etc.) you can be perfectly smart yet poor as a church mouse. When these seeds were replanted on fertile ground, they thrived.

  74. @candid_observer
    Medical schools these days are almost as bad as sociology departments in their devotion to political correctness.

    Remember: half of new doctors are women now. And they appear to be a very resentful and entitled half--political correctness is their leverage and their revenge.

    Remember: half of new doctors are women now. And they appear to be a very resentful and entitled half–political correctness is their leverage and their revenge.

    I have relatives in medicine, and from their experiences it seems that many (not all) of the female physicians are less decisive than male physicians, and that nearly all of them are unwilling to take on the extraordinary workload and insane hours that most male physicians put in.

    Seems that they like the title, the status, and the money, though.

  75. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    What you say is perfectly true but the left in America just spent the last 60 years lecturing us about the evils of McCarthyism so this is all a bit rich coming from them. It’s all who-whom with them – blacklists for thee but not for me.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  76. @Yak-15
    I imagine the new academic protectorate of free speech, the University of Chicago, will invite him to speak. But I sincerely doubt it.

    Woe to the conquered!

    It might. Isn’t he a Uni Chicago man?

  77. @Anonymous
    That sounds like a thesis with great potential for contributing insight.

    Could you recommend a book or article on CDA? I've never heard of it but it sounds very interesting. I have no background in linguistics. If you'd be comfortable posting your proposal, I (and probably other commenters) would love to read that, as well.

    Here are a couple of links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis

    http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

    Some linguists think CDA is not rigorous enough in that it can be too subjective, and that’s probably true, but there are legitimate uses I think. For example: How euphemisms develop under the pressure of a political / elitist ideology that helps reproduce inequality.

  78. @Anonymous
    That sounds like a thesis with great potential for contributing insight.

    Could you recommend a book or article on CDA? I've never heard of it but it sounds very interesting. I have no background in linguistics. If you'd be comfortable posting your proposal, I (and probably other commenters) would love to read that, as well.

    Here are a couple of links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis

    http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

    Some linguists think CDA is not rigorous enough in that it can be too subjective, and that’s probably true, but there are legitimate uses I think. For example: How do euphemism develop under the pressure of a political/elitist ideology that helps reproduce inequality and create linguistic taboos that in turn influence the way people think about an issue. If you can’t use proper words to analyse an issue, you can’t solve it, you can’t even think clearly about it.

  79. @anon
    his partner, francis crick, also believed in race differences in IQ. I don't think anyone except isteve readers knows about this. But all you have to do is read his own letters.

    I didn’t know that but it’s not even remotely surprising that a man of his generation believed in hbd.

  80. @Lex Corvus

    In short, [Watson] suggested that Africans had genetically-based lower IQs than other groups. That’s not the first provocative, hurtful, and unevidenced thing he’s said.

     

    This from a blog called "Why Evolution Is True." What on Earth is going on?

    what’s going on is that Jerry Coyne is a (much) smarter version of PZ Myers and that his evolution advocacy is mostly about attacking christians/creationists/republicans/etc ?

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Exactly. Coyne's a cuck.
    , @candid_observer
    Yeah, I'm afraid that Jerry Coyne is quite the pathetic case.

    He still seems to think that it takes great courage to fight creationists/ID proponents. Because, you know, they're so powerful and distort the education of American children so much.

    It's kind of sad how many so-called liberals and progressives need to invest their opponents with tremendous powers, numbers, and reach in order to make their own lives seem worth any kind of damn. They never seem to notice that those opponents are nowadays just so many nobodies who are going nowhere.

    And Coyne, from his distinguished position as a biologist, is also eager to let us all know that there's no evidence -- none! -- for evolution above the human neck. That's where he and evolution draw the line!

    Again, a sad case.

    Some legacy he'll leave, you know?

  81. @whorefinder
    One thing a healthy society has is respect for the accomplished old. Such a society gives wide leeway to such distinguished people. Heck, the stereotype of the ranting old man making uncouth remarks and being lovingly adored/tolerated for his frankness used to be a stereotype.

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians? Me thinks that did happen in Rome----but only in the latter stages of the Empire period.

    Yet another validation of the quote about democracy denying its ancestors and hiding its descendants.

  82. @Marie
    Makes complete sense to me. Why allow any old white-privileged racist male (with his structurally racist thoughts and structurally racist mind) to sully the consciousness of those young geniuses comprising today's affirmative-action mobs?

    What would a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who discovered DNA's double helix even bring to the discussion? Come on. It's the Current Year!

    James Watson should just quit the hard sciences (so racist!) and just voluntary submit himself now to be brainwashed with the august scholarship and anti-racist Marxism of Prof. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Critical Race Theory co-founder and promoter of 'intersectionality'. It's all he really needs to know, anyway

    Watson should give the system a big middle-finger and just retire and enjoy life. The system is rotting anyways, our universities, even the Ivies are cesspools of PC/MC and totalitarian thought. Heck the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it’s really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.

    In regards to polite society, who wants to hang around a bunch of pansies and passive-aggressive freaks who secretly despise one another and get their kudos? I wouldn’t.

    Watson earned his place in history and science and towers above these ponces and poppinjays.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it’s really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.
     
    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don't have. It is a way for elites to maintain real competitive fitness. They get to meet and marry the smartest people.
  83. @Jack D
    Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman , but close enough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

    “Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman…”

    Even your Wikipedia cite, which in typical Wikipedia fashion stretches the truth a bit in Franklin’s favor, doesn’t support this canard. Did you even bother reading your cite? If so you might want to consider a course in reading comprehension.

    Franklin was a gifted laboratory worker who created extraordinary x-ray crystallography images. But she didn’t have a clue what her images of DNA crystals were suggesting. She misinterpreted them right through the point when Watson and Crick published their work. She was also notoriously difficult to work with. She essentially made life impossible for Wilkins until she left his research group. Franklin played a role in the discovery of the structure of DNA but it was Watson and Crick who actually figured out that structure and went on from there to infer the basic mechanism linking DNA, protein synthesis and genetics.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Franklin and Wilkins together might have been worth a follow-up Nobel, but by then Franklin was dead, and with her Wilkins' chances for a Nobel.
    , @SPMoore8
    I can't speak for Jack D, but based on his comments here in the round I am pretty sure his comment that the DNA discovery was stolen from a Jewish woman was made with tongue firmly in cheek and in response to the prior post that was taken from an African scientist.
  84. @Anonymous
    OT: Hey, slacker Sailer, can't you change your sleep pattern so we on the east coast don't have to wait till noon to have our pertinent comments posted?? Why not sleep during the day when most of us are at work? Most of your stuff is posted late night anyway. Maybe your doctor can prescribe you some Modafinil? Tell him it's work related.

    Asking a bit from the dispenser of free ice cream.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Hear him! Hear him!
  85. @Lex Corvus

    In short, [Watson] suggested that Africans had genetically-based lower IQs than other groups. That’s not the first provocative, hurtful, and unevidenced thing he’s said.

     

    This from a blog called "Why Evolution Is True." What on Earth is going on?

    What on earth do provocative and hurtful have to do with science? And “unevidenced” is simply a lie.

  86. @Corvinus
    Indeed, in this particular instance, the Coalition of the Left Fringe groups are it again with denying a person, regardless of their dubious past comments, the opportunity to speak their mind. Of course, those who ought to give Watson his due will not come to the forefront to champion the First Amendment due to tribalism.

    However, NYU has the liberty to engage in free association in this capacity—it can remove, wrongly in this situation IMO, someone from the public discourse. They may invite him and they may disinvite him. Are they hypocritical in that they champion the exchange of ideas, but squash conversation of controversial topics? Absolutely.

    We have the liberty to speak our minds. Dr. Watson is able to discuss his views, just not at NYU. Of course, he should be given that opportunity to speak there.

    But free speech has always had consequences attached to it, and past remarks today come into the forefront on those invited to talk on college campuses.



    I wonder if and when the Alt-Right enforces their value system after America is partitioned from the impending race war, will they enable the remaining SJW’s and “anti-whites” to discuss matters in public, or will they engage in the same actions as NYU as retaliation for previous, alleged malfeasance?

    We’ll then see if those of the “But Science!” Alt-Right will allow themselves to be held to the same standards they hold the “But Feelings!” Left to. But the Left will need more than those “pretty lies” that seem to buttress so many of their arguments.

    • Replies: @mts1
    Please expand on why the alt-right should treat But Science and But Feelngs with the same respect. They are totally different paradigms, and religion is yet another altogether. Science, ideally, is boxed and framed by structure, repeatable experiments to see if similar results flow. Structure, order, hierarchy, foundations of rock not sand. Feelings can be like a dandelion seed in the wind. That's why policy based on whimsy can be right now and wrong 5 minutes later then right again tomorrow morning. Now if the science changes based on new data or changed constants (we need to reinvent our business because our standby, the beeper, was replaced by the affordable pocket cell phone) that is still rational. The alt-right won't be averse to its own emotional stupid season any more than the left.

    Emotion caused a metric chi-ton of simple life people unrealted to their hyper-successful co-ethnics to get anihilated while the 1%ers holding the Folk down had the information and wealth at hand to let them book ahead of the troubles. Remember all but one Rothschild made it through just fine, and a George Soros collaborator in the ruin of his own people lived to be the Big Man while a lot of bookeepers, deli owners, and doctors were dead to the last close relative of their family tree.

    I'm not saying go full Spock, but if you let But Feelings be the lead dog of your sled, you become as ridiculous as the left.
  87. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    Do you know the name of the graduate student and who the “others” were? Have not heard this part of the story.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The guy who actually took the Photo #51 was Raymond Gosling. It's a complicated story but Rosalind's expertise was in X-ray photography and this was something she was assigned to do. Meanwhile, Gosling was assigned to her. The "others" consist of two or three groups who were all in competition to come up with an accurate description of DNA ahead of Linus Pauling and others. I would suggest reading -- in full -- the wiki on Rosalind Franklin.
  88. @Jack D
    Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman , but close enough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

    In what dictionary can I find the definition of this “stole” of which you speak?

  89. @Jim Don Bob
    That was a great thing for the Russian guy to do.

    You’d expect people who actually lived under communism to appreciate Watson’s bravery. Russians used to be shot for saying that kind of thing in the old days.

  90. @Marie
    Makes complete sense to me. Why allow any old white-privileged racist male (with his structurally racist thoughts and structurally racist mind) to sully the consciousness of those young geniuses comprising today's affirmative-action mobs?

    What would a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who discovered DNA's double helix even bring to the discussion? Come on. It's the Current Year!

    James Watson should just quit the hard sciences (so racist!) and just voluntary submit himself now to be brainwashed with the august scholarship and anti-racist Marxism of Prof. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Critical Race Theory co-founder and promoter of 'intersectionality'. It's all he really needs to know, anyway

    It’s all anyone needs to know. “Critical theory” is the sorcerer’s stone of knowledge. Know it, and you don’t need to know anything else, ever.

  91. @jill
    Progressivism is fascism without the guns

    Anyone notice that 2 Americans were just arrested for the recent hacking of FBI, CIA, etc. Weren't we told it was Putin helping Trump?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37316615

    No MSM reports.

    They do so have guns. Ask the Branch Davidians.

  92. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    their moral principles

    Pretty sure those aren’t what is driving this. They may not even believe that moral principles are possible/relevant.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Well, their moral principles are involved with their identity politics, but they definitely are of a group of modern day "intellectuals" who believe that certain thoughts are detrimental to social progress (or enabling of social deterioration) and therefore such thoughts need to be suppressed. Thus, just as "Climate Change" is responsible for any bad weather, so any expression that suggests hierarchical differences among various types of humans, either by gender, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, body shape, neuro-atypicality, intelligence or ability is to blame for crime, poverty, and just in general all those homicides in Chicago. For shame!

    But the upshot of it is that if we suppress such expressions we are doing something that advances social development. And who doesn't want to do that?

    I also am inclined to think that some of this is just AA's in colleges and graduate schools feeling their oats and throwing their weight around* -- because they can.

    * not meant as a slur on fat people but I'm sure I'm guilty of something else, because I'm a white guy.
  93. @Lex Corvus

    In short, [Watson] suggested that Africans had genetically-based lower IQs than other groups. That’s not the first provocative, hurtful, and unevidenced thing he’s said.

     

    This from a blog called "Why Evolution Is True." What on Earth is going on?

    It’s called political correctness.

  94. “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. ” – Nietzsche. USA fought USSR but now that they are gone, we have become more like them.
    1. Government integration with big business including Wall St., GM and health insurance.
    2. Media generally repeating the government propaganda line.
    3. Suppression of Christianity and the natural family.
    4. Military adventurism and subversion of foreign governments.
    5. Elites using criminal classes to weaken the middle class.
    6. Disposal of politically-incorrect science.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    And yet we still sneer condescendingly at Soviet Lysenkoism, and how those barbaric savages let ideology blind them to elementary truths.
  95. @AndrewR
    The more open-minded ones would probably allow a broad array of views, but one need merely glance at the comment sections of the al right to realize there's no shortage of totalitarian and dogmatic alt-righters (assuming the vile commenters aren't hasbara)

    “(assuming the vile commenters aren’t hasbara)”

    That could well be a bigger assumption than you think.

  96. @prole
    In another decade those like Watson will be incarcerated for expressing such politically incorrect views.

    Incarceration and fines for so-called “hate speech” directed at entitled and protected groups (I can’t say minorities because women are entitled and protected) is already de rigueur in Germany, France, Britain, and Canada. “Hate speech” includes saying something insensitive about a protected group, such as pointing out the average IQ of Blacks or the finer points of the Islamic religion.

    We can thank God that we have the First Amendment to our Constitution … or, we would be in a similar legal fix. But, as James Watson repeatedly rediscovers, social and professional banishment is also a price to pay, even in the United States, as the SJWs sweep our universities, schools, professional organizations, corporations, and government agencies.

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.

    We miss you Peter …!

    • Replies: @BB753
    Frost should have sought political refugee status in Russia. Isn't he married to a Russian?
    , @RaceRealist88

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.
     
    Really? I didn't hear about this. Do you have a link.
    , @Marie
    This is great and speaks for all of the Cass Sunsteins of the world who yearn for a weaponized SJW version of the First Amendment.
  97. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/the-giraffe-is-not-one-species-but-four-scientists-discover/

    Giraffes are not one species but several. Seems like the more difference scientists discover between groups of animals, the more we discover the lack of them between groups of humans. Funny how that happens.

  98. to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals.

    How could anyone possibly?

  99. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and “obese individuals”.

    Information like this can sometimes be hard to track down.

    The race stuff is in the article so a person can make up his own mind.

    I am surprised that apparently the one interview was enough to cash him in, especially since he apologized.

    • Replies: @guest
    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in. "See, he admits it!"
  100. @syonredux

    Not alone was Franklin female but she was also Jewish. I’m sure more people have heard of her by now than of Maurice Wilkins, who did actually win the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.
     
    The narrative writes itself:Jewish woman has her discoveries stolen by misogynistic male Gentiles...

    Photograph 51 is an award-winning play by Anna Ziegler. Photograph 51 opened in the West End of London in September 2015.[1] The play is known for its revelation of the working life of Rosalind Franklin and her involvement in the discovery of DNA whilst at King's College London. The title comes from "Photo 51" being the nickname given to an X-ray diffraction image taken by Raymond Gosling in May 1952, under the supervision of Rosalind Franklin.[2]
    The 'bioplay' focuses on the often-overlooked role of x-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.[3][4] This play won the 3rd STAGE International Script Competition in 2008.[5] The one-act play runs for 95-minutes with no intermission.
    The play premiered first in the United States (where it was produced at Ensemble Studio Theatre in New York, Theater J in Washington DC, Seattle Repertory Theatre in Seattle, amongst many others),[6] then in London's Noël Coward Theatre, in the West End, directed by Michael Grandage.[7]

     


    Critical response
    Michael Billington of The Guardian wrote a rave review, commenting that "Nicole Kidman captures the ecstasy of scientific discovery".... "Anna Ziegler's new play asserts the contribution of 1950s chemist Rosalind Franklin to the discovery of DNA and asks: is science still sexist?.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_51_(play)

    Maybe Nicole Kidman will get to reprise her role as Franklin in a film version?

    The narrative writes itself:Jewish woman has her discoveries stolen by misogynistic male Gentiles…

    Precisely.

    Sorry, wymmynz and chosenites…but for someone to be nominated for the Nobel Prize, they have to be alive.

    She died in 1958, the prize for this work was awarded in 1962. Allegations of misogyny or sexism on this count are absurd.

    Plenty of men who contributed to significant Nobeloid discoveries died before they could be nominated as well. And since there is often a rather long passage of time between a body of work and its nomination, one of the things that a science or math Nobel awards is longevity.

    Now let’s hear a bunch of bitching from the Narrative Gallery about how unjust that is and how every 20 year old female tranny lesbian black mestizo with flippers and eyeballs on stalks should get a science Nobel, coz otherwise it isn’t fair.

    Reminds me of the scene in I think it was Pride and Prejudice (or some other Austenia) where Lady Catherine assures her listeners that if she had had any talent whatever for music, she would have been quite the adept.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Well said.

    From the World's Most Perfect Novel, Lady Catherine to Colonel Fitzwilliam, then Darcy:

    "What is that you are saying, Fitzwilliam? What is it you are talking of? What are you telling Miss Bennet? Let me hear what it is. Of music! Then pray speak aloud. It is of all subjects my delight. I must have my share in the conversation, if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient. . . "
  101. @iffen
    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and “obese individuals”.

    Information like this can sometimes be hard to track down.

    The race stuff is in the article so a person can make up his own mind.

    I am surprised that apparently the one interview was enough to cash him in, especially since he apologized.

    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in. “See, he admits it!”

    • Replies: @iffen
    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in.

    I think that it is more nuanced than that. I am pretty sure that the guy that I saw today at the stop light for the exit ramp with the sign, "Homeless Please Help," was not Larry Summers.
    , @Broski
    Indeed. This lesson should have been widely absorbed with Skip Gates' Harvard cop episode.
  102. @Jus' Sayin'...

    "Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman..."
     
    Even your Wikipedia cite, which in typical Wikipedia fashion stretches the truth a bit in Franklin's favor, doesn't support this canard. Did you even bother reading your cite? If so you might want to consider a course in reading comprehension.

    Franklin was a gifted laboratory worker who created extraordinary x-ray crystallography images. But she didn't have a clue what her images of DNA crystals were suggesting. She misinterpreted them right through the point when Watson and Crick published their work. She was also notoriously difficult to work with. She essentially made life impossible for Wilkins until she left his research group. Franklin played a role in the discovery of the structure of DNA but it was Watson and Crick who actually figured out that structure and went on from there to infer the basic mechanism linking DNA, protein synthesis and genetics.

    Franklin and Wilkins together might have been worth a follow-up Nobel, but by then Franklin was dead, and with her Wilkins’ chances for a Nobel.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    But Wilkins shared the Nobel with Crick and Watson.
  103. @guest
    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in. "See, he admits it!"

    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in.

    I think that it is more nuanced than that. I am pretty sure that the guy that I saw today at the stop light for the exit ramp with the sign, “Homeless Please Help,” was not Larry Summers.

    • Replies: @guest
    "I think that it is more nuanced that that."

    Isn't everything? But ceteris paribus, apologizing gets you in deeper.
  104. @Jack D
    Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman , but close enough.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

    Ugh, not this again. Rosalind Franklin insisted that the DNA structure was not helical despite being told so by Crick.

    It would more accurate to say that Franklin “stole” the credit for the famous Phot0 51 in popular belief (repeated in that Discover article) from a white man, Raymond Gosling.

    Feminist canards normally find little purchase here on iSteve. Of course, this is a Jewish feminist canard, and that makes all the difference for some people.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  105. @ogunsiron
    what's going on is that Jerry Coyne is a (much) smarter version of PZ Myers and that his evolution advocacy is mostly about attacking christians/creationists/republicans/etc ?

    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.

    I don't think that you can know that for sure.

    Many smart, educated people buy into the idea that we proles should be shielded from "The Truth."
    , @AnotherDad

    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.
     
    Not quite by my definition. Skimmed his wiki, Coyne seems to be a standard issue leftist, secular Jew. AFAIK he's doing standard issue work for his team.

    Jeb Bush is a cuck.
  106. @Dr. X
    Ah, yes. An auto-da-fe of the 21st century Leftist Inquisition. Watson, discoverer of DNA, thrown out of a medical school for comments nearly a decade old that contradict the official dogma of the Diversity Cult.

    The Age of Enlightenment is dead, people. The scientific method has been subordinated to the neo-communist religion of the Left.

    Next time you hear some lefty criticizing the Medieval Church for the Inquisition or the treatment of Galileo, laugh in his face. Next time you hear some lefty like Obama piously claim the authority of "science," or denounce the Republicans as "anti-scientific," you should be rolling on the floor with spasms of uncontrollable, hysterical laughter.

    It’s arguable that the Church has more respect for science than the Left does now:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/opinion/pondering-miracles-medical-and-religious.html

  107. @Steve Sailer
    Franklin and Wilkins together might have been worth a follow-up Nobel, but by then Franklin was dead, and with her Wilkins' chances for a Nobel.

    But Wilkins shared the Nobel with Crick and Watson.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    IIRC, no more than three persons can share a Nobel Prize. It's interesting to speculate whether that third person might have been Franklin rather than Wilkins had she lived that long. Franklin did her work at Wilkins's lab and under his nominal supervision. Much of her grunt work was done by others also under Wilkins's supervision. Also Franklin had a personality that grated on some although she apparently also had a warm and gracious side. Science is as political as any other human occupation and personalities and interpersonal relations play a significant role in determining who gets scientific recognition and who doesn't
  108. @vinteuil
    Exactly. Coyne's a cuck.

    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.

    I don’t think that you can know that for sure.

    Many smart, educated people buy into the idea that we proles should be shielded from “The Truth.”

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    see Razib's recent article on this
    , @iffen
    It's really tricky. You need someone like Trump at one level but someone else at the next level. I am not sure that many leaders are produced who can communicate and influence at different levels.
  109. In 2007 Watson said “I turned against the left wing because they don’t like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have bad genes. They want all failure in life to be due to the evil system.”

  110. @ben tillman
    Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.

    Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.

    I’ll say. He comes across as darn near a left-creationist. He isn’t say Watson was unfairly Watsoned, he’s saying something like “hey it’s been a few years … and maybe he’s recanted.” Coyne’s comments about Watson’s comments are dismissive–“no evidence.” Not the case. There’s plenty of evidence. It’s just not firm. What we don’t have–yet–is really solid determinative DNA evidence. But that’s mostly because we don’t yet know all the genes are involved in “intelligence” almost certainly because there are so damn many of them.

    And his commenters … holy cow, what a bunch of nitwits. The left creationists are really out in force. Why do people like this bother to study evolutionary biology or … anything! Their brains are impenetrable as cement blocks.

    ~~

    This is not very complicated. And it doesn’t take James Watson or a PhD in biology, even a guy with a physics degree like me can figure it out:

    Any trait that commonly varies between people–i.e. is not *fixed* (e.g. ten fingers, ten toes), should vary to at least some extent between population groups.

    This is–i’d say–“just math”. Guys and gals are humping all the time; people are dying from this, that or the other thing all the time. If a trait isn’t fixed in the population, then every time someone is born or dies the population mean moves. It would be the height of absurd coincidence to have the selection pressures in two different population groups with different geographic\climatic and cultural environments yield the exactly same selection. And, obviously, where the groups’ environments and hence their selection pressures are far apart, you’d expect group differences to be further apart.

    A less “just math” and more “bio” corollary:

    “It would be very odd to not have distinct differences in mental traits between population groups separated during these last 10,000 years, given the neolithic revolution and all the follow on development of agriculture, civilization, social stratification, trade, metal work, written languages, bureaucracy, etc. etc.”

    What the heck would selection be working on these last 10,000 if not mental traits? I can think of disease resistance very being significant as well. But selection for people with the mental makeup to survive, prosper and leave more offspring in these new environments would be huge.

    It boggles my mind that anyone who thinks they are studying evolution or evolutionary biology can not understand these two points. Or it would boggle my mind, except that life experience has convinced me that most people–even people who think they are studying something–have very little ability and\or desire to think critically, and even less desire to challenge their orthodoxy.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @Broski
    We have all the circumstantial evidence conceivable. Look at black populations anywhere on earth, over hundreds of years of history. Wherever they go, they take Africa with them. Of course it's genetic.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Nicely argued. How naïve of you to think that "critical thinking" is useful today; September 9, 2016, or maybe September 10, well, whatever today is. How pleasant it has been to have heard from you.
  111. Here is the line that got Watson fired——“[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 went on to say that despite the desire that all human beings should be equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

    Where is the justification for firing??

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Speaking the truth. Name me one person who is optimistic about Africa.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Come on now, you are being obtuse.
  112. @Unladen Swallow
    Unlikely, Wilson was still relatively young when he crossed the Academic Left, and it still took him a decade and a half to be "rehabilitated", James Watson was pushing 80 when he crossed them, assuming the Academic Left is interested in bringing him back into the fold and assuming he still is alive, he would be in his nineties.

    They are nearly the same age, but Watson committed his offense over 30 years later. Plus, Wilson wasn't brought in to "prop up" Darwinism, it was to become the new intellectual face of environmentalism, replacing his buddy Paul Ehrlich who had become an embarrassment to the establishment. Wilson has barely talked sociobiology since co-authoring "The Ants" with Bert Holldobler in 1990, all his books written since then, not including some spinoffs of "The Ants" have been environmentally oriented books.

    Good points. Time flies, I had not realized they were both 90-ish. Hope I’m that vital at their age …

    [iSteve — where no joke is too esoteric to be nit-picked to death *lulz*]

  113. Sailer you asshole you let these wankers criticize my posts and then won’t let me respond ? Pass that shit Negro .

  114. @donut
    "But I’m not made to be a seducer, or to make faces at myself in the mirror. I was badly made and don’t have the looks to strut my stuff in front of pretty sluts. I’ve been cheated of a nice body and face, or even normal proportions. I am deformed, spit out from my mother’s womb prematurely and so badly formed that dogs bark at me as I limp by them. I’m left with nothing to do in this weak, idle peacetime, unless I want to look at my lumpy shadow in the sun and sing about that."

    Since I can’t amuse myself by being a lover, I’ve decided to become a villain. I’ve set dangerous plans in motion, using lies, drunken prophecies, and stories about dreams to set my brother Clarence and the king against each other. If King Edward is as honest and fair-minded as I am deceitful and cruel, then Clarence is going to be locked away in prison today because of a prophecy that
    “G”

    Edward interprets “G” to mean George, Duke of Clarence, though ironically it could just as well mean Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
    “G” will murder Edward’s children. Oh, time to hide what I’m thinking—here comes Clarence.

    What great drama and every word a lie . The Tudors in truth had no claim to the thrown and Richard was rightfully king . The poisonous , grasping Woodvilles and the usurping Tudors are with us still but there is no brave and loyal Richard to defend our cause , our liberties .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjJEXkbeL-o

    Why must there always be a pissing scene?

    When will the directors ever get over the idea that showing the protagonist pissing is cool & edgy? and not just stale & conformist?

    Feh.

    • Replies: @donut
    Easy big fellow , urine is sterile .
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I'm with you dude. Another thing that sets off my "they have no idea where the plot is going" radar is to have the main character throw up. That and a dream sequence. C'mon, man!
  115. @TheJester
    Incarceration and fines for so-called "hate speech" directed at entitled and protected groups (I can't say minorities because women are entitled and protected) is already de rigueur in Germany, France, Britain, and Canada. "Hate speech" includes saying something insensitive about a protected group, such as pointing out the average IQ of Blacks or the finer points of the Islamic religion.

    We can thank God that we have the First Amendment to our Constitution ... or, we would be in a similar legal fix. But, as James Watson repeatedly rediscovers, social and professional banishment is also a price to pay, even in the United States, as the SJWs sweep our universities, schools, professional organizations, corporations, and government agencies.

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.

    We miss you Peter ...!

    Frost should have sought political refugee status in Russia. Isn’t he married to a Russian?

  116. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    >If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too

    Possibly – she did write this in a report, a year before Crick & Watson’s announcement:

    “The results suggest a helical structure (which must be very closely packed) containing 2, 3 or 4 co‐axial nucleic acid chains per helical unit, and having the phosphate groups near the outside.”

    But the Nobel can only be shared 3 ways (at most) which doesn’t always fit the facts – eg
    in 2013 the Physics prize was shared by Higgs & Englert, when arguably it should have been shared 5 ways with Kibble, Guralnik and Hagen.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Curiously, if Rosalind Franklin knew hardcore crystallography, she quite possibly could have guessed the structure. Unfortunately to her, Crick turned out to understand her own field better and thus understood the importance of one experimental detail (C2 symmetry) - an antiparallel dimer in the unit cell. This was the most critical feature the "thieves" learned. (They weren't thieves, actually. Rosy's boss, Maurice Wilkins, couldn't stand her, and, while himself not being able to make any sense of it, had zero problem sharing her data with known competitors from Cambridge, Crick and Watson. To add insult to injury, Wilkins got the Nobel after Franklin died.)
  117. @dearieme
    But Wilkins shared the Nobel with Crick and Watson.

    IIRC, no more than three persons can share a Nobel Prize. It’s interesting to speculate whether that third person might have been Franklin rather than Wilkins had she lived that long. Franklin did her work at Wilkins’s lab and under his nominal supervision. Much of her grunt work was done by others also under Wilkins’s supervision. Also Franklin had a personality that grated on some although she apparently also had a warm and gracious side. Science is as political as any other human occupation and personalities and interpersonal relations play a significant role in determining who gets scientific recognition and who doesn’t

  118. @vinteuil
    Exactly. Coyne's a cuck.

    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.

    Not quite by my definition. Skimmed his wiki, Coyne seems to be a standard issue leftist, secular Jew. AFAIK he’s doing standard issue work for his team.

    Jeb Bush is a cuck.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    LOL, i had no idea that he was jewish but i'm of course not surprised.
    I suppose that stephen j. "fraud" gould is one of his heroes.
  119. By the standards of the one drop rule James D. Watson can claim to be Black if he wants to.
    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/watsons-black-dna-ultimate-irony/?_r=0

    So it is extremely racist for White Liberals to ban the High Yellow Negro James from polite society. They better check their racist pure White privilege.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  120. After all while there are strong hints there is still no proof that there are racial IQ differences.

    Wrong. The racial gaps in IQ are established science, so much so that even shrinks have acknowledged it collectively, in a letter to the NYT. Only unwashed rubes and media airheads don’t know this.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    so much so that even shrinks have acknowledged it collectively, in a letter to the NYT. Only unwashed rubes and media airheads don’t know this.
     
    Are you talking about the publication Mainstream Science on Intelligence?
  121. @iffen
    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in.

    I think that it is more nuanced than that. I am pretty sure that the guy that I saw today at the stop light for the exit ramp with the sign, "Homeless Please Help," was not Larry Summers.

    “I think that it is more nuanced that that.”

    Isn’t everything? But ceteris paribus, apologizing gets you in deeper.

  122. @Brutusale
    We'll then see if those of the "But Science!" Alt-Right will allow themselves to be held to the same standards they hold the "But Feelings!" Left to. But the Left will need more than those "pretty lies" that seem to buttress so many of their arguments.

    Please expand on why the alt-right should treat But Science and But Feelngs with the same respect. They are totally different paradigms, and religion is yet another altogether. Science, ideally, is boxed and framed by structure, repeatable experiments to see if similar results flow. Structure, order, hierarchy, foundations of rock not sand. Feelings can be like a dandelion seed in the wind. That’s why policy based on whimsy can be right now and wrong 5 minutes later then right again tomorrow morning. Now if the science changes based on new data or changed constants (we need to reinvent our business because our standby, the beeper, was replaced by the affordable pocket cell phone) that is still rational. The alt-right won’t be averse to its own emotional stupid season any more than the left.

    Emotion caused a metric chi-ton of simple life people unrealted to their hyper-successful co-ethnics to get anihilated while the 1%ers holding the Folk down had the information and wealth at hand to let them book ahead of the troubles. Remember all but one Rothschild made it through just fine, and a George Soros collaborator in the ruin of his own people lived to be the Big Man while a lot of bookeepers, deli owners, and doctors were dead to the last close relative of their family tree.

    I’m not saying go full Spock, but if you let But Feelings be the lead dog of your sled, you become as ridiculous as the left.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Feelings aren't allowed to have a skin in the game. As I typed, But Feelings needs more than their Pretty Lies. Like those things called facts.

    You "feel" like the average black has the intellectual horsepower of the average white, fine, then PROVE it without moving the goalposts. I would hope that the Alt-Right would acknowledge any mutually-acceptable facts.

    What you're missing is that my reply to Corvie essentially says that though the Alt-Right should be held by the same factual standards, but possibility of Left arguing facts isn't keeping me up at night.

  123. @anony-mouse
    NYU is 'polite society'?

    “NYU is ‘polite society’?”

    Nah! Columbia is polite society … NYU is a somewhat more ethnic stepchild for pretenders to polite society.

    • Replies: @dan hayes
    Double Nah! NYU is just a party school.
  124. @vinteuil
    Why must there always be a pissing scene?

    When will the directors ever get over the idea that showing the protagonist pissing is cool & edgy? and not just stale & conformist?

    Feh.

    Easy big fellow , urine is sterile .

    • Replies: @guest
    Not necessarily. Often it has blood in it, for instance.
  125. @ogunsiron
    what's going on is that Jerry Coyne is a (much) smarter version of PZ Myers and that his evolution advocacy is mostly about attacking christians/creationists/republicans/etc ?

    Yeah, I’m afraid that Jerry Coyne is quite the pathetic case.

    He still seems to think that it takes great courage to fight creationists/ID proponents. Because, you know, they’re so powerful and distort the education of American children so much.

    It’s kind of sad how many so-called liberals and progressives need to invest their opponents with tremendous powers, numbers, and reach in order to make their own lives seem worth any kind of damn. They never seem to notice that those opponents are nowadays just so many nobodies who are going nowhere.

    And Coyne, from his distinguished position as a biologist, is also eager to let us all know that there’s no evidence — none! — for evolution above the human neck. That’s where he and evolution draw the line!

    Again, a sad case.

    Some legacy he’ll leave, you know?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.
  126. OK ,OK , I see how it is now , bitch . You’ve got the control so you’re going to f88k with me right ? Well here is my sincere prayer for you . That little bathmat patch of green you call a lawn ? is going to shrivel up and die and in the end look just like your bald head . You better get some gravel up in that bitch .

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "That little bathmat patch of green you call a lawn ? is going to shrivel up and die and in the end look just like your bald head ."
    You killed Steves rabbit, didn't you!
  127. @donut
    Easy big fellow , urine is sterile .

    Not necessarily. Often it has blood in it, for instance.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Kidney infections will render urine non-sterile, too.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Blood isn't sterile? My god!! Somebody tell the Red Cross!
  128. @Jus' Sayin'...

    "Actually he stole it from a Jewish woman..."
     
    Even your Wikipedia cite, which in typical Wikipedia fashion stretches the truth a bit in Franklin's favor, doesn't support this canard. Did you even bother reading your cite? If so you might want to consider a course in reading comprehension.

    Franklin was a gifted laboratory worker who created extraordinary x-ray crystallography images. But she didn't have a clue what her images of DNA crystals were suggesting. She misinterpreted them right through the point when Watson and Crick published their work. She was also notoriously difficult to work with. She essentially made life impossible for Wilkins until she left his research group. Franklin played a role in the discovery of the structure of DNA but it was Watson and Crick who actually figured out that structure and went on from there to infer the basic mechanism linking DNA, protein synthesis and genetics.

    I can’t speak for Jack D, but based on his comments here in the round I am pretty sure his comment that the DNA discovery was stolen from a Jewish woman was made with tongue firmly in cheek and in response to the prior post that was taken from an African scientist.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Agree/LOL
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    /sarc'ed again. But in my self defense, I've heard and read the assertion that Franklin was somehow mistreated by Watson, Crick, and/or Wilkins way too many times.
    , @Anonymous
    Crick made another Nobel-worthy discovery, in collaboration with the actual African scientist, that was crucial to elucidation of the genetic code. Here is the African scientist (who later won a Nobel for an unrelated contribution): https://www.google.com/search?q=Sydney+Brenner
  129. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The same Jewish tribalists bitching about Rosalind Franklin’s obscurity do not give a damn about the expungement of Poincare and Lorentz in favor of the superbeing Einstein.

    It was the Lorentz-Einstein Theory after all … until it magically became Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and — at least in America — they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker. Now all are taught in school the myth of this miracle worker.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein. That appealed to the tribalism in me!

    BTW, is Poincare related to the public official Poincare?
    , @Antonymous
    At least Lorentz transformations bear his name, but true, no general recognition. Einstein's career output is curious -- even NAS studied whether his wife played a role in his first four papers, all published in one year with no followup until general relativity. And not much beyond GR either. Our first celebrity scientist with more hype than deserved?
    , @Jim
    Poincare is universally recognized as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. The Lorentz group bears Lorentz's name.

    I would say that while Minkowski did not discover the Special Theory of Relativity he was perhaps the first to understand it.
    , @PiltdownMan

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and — at least in America — they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker.
     
    If you study physics and get to the topic of special relativity, you learn about the Lorentz transform, whether in America or elsewhere. Similarly, if you are a math major, it is impossible to not learn about Henri Poincaré.
    , @Brutusale
    Lorentz...a lepidopterist, no?

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he's more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?
  130. @Anonymous
    Do you know the name of the graduate student and who the "others" were? Have not heard this part of the story.

    The guy who actually took the Photo #51 was Raymond Gosling. It’s a complicated story but Rosalind’s expertise was in X-ray photography and this was something she was assigned to do. Meanwhile, Gosling was assigned to her. The “others” consist of two or three groups who were all in competition to come up with an accurate description of DNA ahead of Linus Pauling and others. I would suggest reading — in full — the wiki on Rosalind Franklin.

  131. @Anonymous
    First time I've heard of the 'obese' being mentioned on the Totem Pole - perhaps they are supporting, as in holding up, the whole darned thing.
    Anyway, isn't the term 'obese' a bit strong in itself, I thought a more PC term would be in order, something on the lines of 'barioatric'

    Milo’s “stop being fat” campaign seems to have created a new category of the oppressed.

  132. @Desiderius

    their moral principles
     
    Pretty sure those aren't what is driving this. They may not even believe that moral principles are possible/relevant.

    Well, their moral principles are involved with their identity politics, but they definitely are of a group of modern day “intellectuals” who believe that certain thoughts are detrimental to social progress (or enabling of social deterioration) and therefore such thoughts need to be suppressed. Thus, just as “Climate Change” is responsible for any bad weather, so any expression that suggests hierarchical differences among various types of humans, either by gender, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, body shape, neuro-atypicality, intelligence or ability is to blame for crime, poverty, and just in general all those homicides in Chicago. For shame!

    But the upshot of it is that if we suppress such expressions we are doing something that advances social development. And who doesn’t want to do that?

    I also am inclined to think that some of this is just AA’s in colleges and graduate schools feeling their oats and throwing their weight around* — because they can.

    * not meant as a slur on fat people but I’m sure I’m guilty of something else, because I’m a white guy.

  133. @dearieme
    "had made public claims to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals": I don't think that's even English, is it?

    I don’t think it means what they think it means.

  134. @gruff
    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.

    Ridicule is your greatest weapon.

    Make sure your tactics entertain your supporters.

  135. Tonight my only steady friend , who I have only known from playing various games on line , on teamspeak almost every day for ten years told me he was going to kill himself tonight . The f88king asshole . Really he is a complete wanker and mostly our conversation consisted of me calling him a toilette trader and shirt lifter which he was most certainly not , and him calling me a complete idiot and incompetent which might have a tiny semblance of truth to it . But never the less he was a generous guy who gave freely of what he had . The f**king asshole , The f**king asshole .

  136. @dearieme
    "had made public claims to diminish respect for black, female and obese individuals": I don't think that's even English, is it?

    Grammar is racist

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Grammar be racist. Spellin' too, muthafuka.
  137. @Yak-15
    I imagine the new academic protectorate of free speech, the University of Chicago, will invite him to speak. But I sincerely doubt it.

    Woe to the conquered!

    IIRC, their recently announced policy is to refrain from coddling their students as much as other elite schools coddle theirs. I don’t think they’ll invite Watson or anyone else on the Right who is very controversial. Inviting Jim Webb, which their Institute of Politics (led by none other than David Axelrod) did, is about as far as they’ll go.

  138. @Lynx Rufus
    After Charles Murray had a chance to speak at Virginia Tech, things were changed to make sure such things never happen again.

    I will not be doing any alumni giving as a result of this. Murray is nowhere close to an extremist. I honestly didn’t notice a strain of SJW’s in the business school during my time there and I graduated in the last 10 years.

  139. @Anonymous
    And this from your link;

    "Jacobson added, “Obviously, the impact of anti-Semitism through the century has been devastating to Jews"

    I don't mean to be indifferent to the suffering of Jews who were murdered in WW2 or their descendants who live with the nightmares of those events, but this argument is, if not debatable, then as least subject to qualification.

    An aspergerian or autistic could argue that because of severe selective pressure, the Jewish genome has benefitted from the most ruthless culling of any in the world today. Where else did that high IQ come from if not from the fact that most of the Jews who could afford to emigrate before WW2 came from the most talented, wealthiest class and they brought their smarts with them.

    But Jacobson doesn't believe in the possibility for any genetic basis for intelligence to begin with, so this argument wouldn't offer any consoling, redeeming or explanatory value for him.

    A key point, from the Darwinian perspective, is that the global Jewish population is still several million below its 1940 peak.

    As a result, despite vast financial success and the acquisition of political power in western countries, the global diaspora has had a poor century in reproductive fitness terms.

  140. @The Alarmist

    "NYU is ‘polite society’?"
     
    Nah! Columbia is polite society ... NYU is a somewhat more ethnic stepchild for pretenders to polite society.

    Double Nah! NYU is just a party school.

  141. @SPMoore8
    I can't speak for Jack D, but based on his comments here in the round I am pretty sure his comment that the DNA discovery was stolen from a Jewish woman was made with tongue firmly in cheek and in response to the prior post that was taken from an African scientist.

    Agree/LOL

  142. @candid_observer
    Yeah, I'm afraid that Jerry Coyne is quite the pathetic case.

    He still seems to think that it takes great courage to fight creationists/ID proponents. Because, you know, they're so powerful and distort the education of American children so much.

    It's kind of sad how many so-called liberals and progressives need to invest their opponents with tremendous powers, numbers, and reach in order to make their own lives seem worth any kind of damn. They never seem to notice that those opponents are nowadays just so many nobodies who are going nowhere.

    And Coyne, from his distinguished position as a biologist, is also eager to let us all know that there's no evidence -- none! -- for evolution above the human neck. That's where he and evolution draw the line!

    Again, a sad case.

    Some legacy he'll leave, you know?

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.

    • Replies: @larry lurker

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.
     
    People like Bush-appointed Republican Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School district, the landmark ID case?

    From his decision:

    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
     
    , @biz

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.
     
    Incorrect. Both creationism and ID are equally non-scientific, because they posit a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena.
  143. @Anonymous
    The same Jewish tribalists bitching about Rosalind Franklin's obscurity do not give a damn about the expungement of Poincare and Lorentz in favor of the superbeing Einstein.

    It was the Lorentz-Einstein Theory after all ... until it magically became Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and -- at least in America -- they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker. Now all are taught in school the myth of this miracle worker.

    I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein. That appealed to the tribalism in me!

    BTW, is Poincare related to the public official Poincare?

    • Replies: @BB753
    Yes, Henry, the mathematician, and Raymond, president during the third French Republic and WWI , were cousins.
    , @dearieme
    "I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein." So was I but I am old. And not American.
  144. @Desiderius

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians?
     
    Justinian treated Belisarius pretty badly (cf. Gibbon), since his victories in battle over the barbarians threatened to show Justinian up, at least in his (and his wife's) mind. That's a sort of rudeness, I guess.

    Similar dynamic at work here, I suspect. Actual achievement doesn't go over real well with those incapable of producing it themselves.

    Former emperors and their administrations frequently became enemies of the state. It happens in all civilizations.

  145. @AndrewR
    Dim rich people are, to a person, rich because of luck.

    There are many poor bright people but IQ highly correlates with low time preference, which highly correlates with wealth.

    There are plenty of dull hardworkers whose good values and enthusiasm for work make them rich. They’re not inventing new market exploits or surgical products, however.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Well-off? Sure. Rich? I guess that depends how you define it.
  146. @rod1963
    Watson should give the system a big middle-finger and just retire and enjoy life. The system is rotting anyways, our universities, even the Ivies are cesspools of PC/MC and totalitarian thought. Heck the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it's really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.

    In regards to polite society, who wants to hang around a bunch of pansies and passive-aggressive freaks who secretly despise one another and get their kudos? I wouldn't.

    Watson earned his place in history and science and towers above these ponces and poppinjays.

    the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it’s really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.

    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don’t have. It is a way for elites to maintain real competitive fitness. They get to meet and marry the smartest people.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person
     
    Judging the tree by its fruit, your definition of elite and smart could use some supplementation.

    At minimum.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don’t have."
     
    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies ... not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.
    , @artichoke
    see: "Princeton mom". Who advised young Princeton ladies to get to know those Princeton guys and maybe marry them, because they're better than the men they would tend to meet outside Princeton.

    I married someone from my university. My parents married at university. I think it's good advice and an easy place to do the social / dating thing.
  147. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    There’s really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    A public university is the government. If a private university doesn’t want to let you speak, that is up to them. If it is public, then it is the government prohibiting you from speaking.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Well, if we can work a free speech angle to Title IX, I'm all for it.
    , @Hibernian
    I think some conservative legal groups have won legal victories for conservative, or at least not totally brainwashed, students on this basis. I think their have been actions on contractual grounds at private schools but I'm not sure how much if any success those have had.
    , @dearieme
    "If a private university doesn’t want to let you speak, that is up to them." if the private university subsists in large measure off government research grants and government student loans, should it be viewed as private for these purposes? Put otherwise, if it were excluding leftie and Democrat speakers, would it be viewed as private?
  148. @Olorin

    The narrative writes itself:Jewish woman has her discoveries stolen by misogynistic male Gentiles…
     
    Precisely.

    Sorry, wymmynz and chosenites...but for someone to be nominated for the Nobel Prize, they have to be alive.

    She died in 1958, the prize for this work was awarded in 1962. Allegations of misogyny or sexism on this count are absurd.

    Plenty of men who contributed to significant Nobeloid discoveries died before they could be nominated as well. And since there is often a rather long passage of time between a body of work and its nomination, one of the things that a science or math Nobel awards is longevity.

    Now let's hear a bunch of bitching from the Narrative Gallery about how unjust that is and how every 20 year old female tranny lesbian black mestizo with flippers and eyeballs on stalks should get a science Nobel, coz otherwise it isn't fair.

    Reminds me of the scene in I think it was Pride and Prejudice (or some other Austenia) where Lady Catherine assures her listeners that if she had had any talent whatever for music, she would have been quite the adept.

    Well said.

    From the World’s Most Perfect Novel, Lady Catherine to Colonel Fitzwilliam, then Darcy:

    “What is that you are saying, Fitzwilliam? What is it you are talking of? What are you telling Miss Bennet? Let me hear what it is. Of music! Then pray speak aloud. It is of all subjects my delight. I must have my share in the conversation, if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient. . . “

  149. @Erik Sieven
    "And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."
    are they as bright as other STEM people?

    Probably not, because they can get by without doing math, but they might be the most competitive.

  150. @Anonymous
    The same Jewish tribalists bitching about Rosalind Franklin's obscurity do not give a damn about the expungement of Poincare and Lorentz in favor of the superbeing Einstein.

    It was the Lorentz-Einstein Theory after all ... until it magically became Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and -- at least in America -- they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker. Now all are taught in school the myth of this miracle worker.

    At least Lorentz transformations bear his name, but true, no general recognition. Einstein’s career output is curious — even NAS studied whether his wife played a role in his first four papers, all published in one year with no followup until general relativity. And not much beyond GR either. Our first celebrity scientist with more hype than deserved?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    It's spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.

    But he's still the second greatest mathematical physicist ever. You can't really deny him that status just because, for example, much of the wit and wisdom attributed to him is bogus, or because he was selfish to the point of dishonesty about giving due credit to others. Or even because he may have bumped off his daughter. The two relativities guarantee him that status, and will do so even when they are eventually replaced by other theories. The fact that his Nobel was not for Special Relativity may just be some doleful Swedish joke.
  151. @Buck Dodgers Superstar
    Here is the line that got Watson fired------"[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 went on to say that despite the desire that all human beings should be equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."



    Where is the justification for firing??

    Speaking the truth. Name me one person who is optimistic about Africa.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Speaking the truth. Name me one person who is optimistic about Africa."

    Bill Gates believes Africans are the future.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tobyshapshak/2016/07/17/bill-gates-on-africa-tomorrows-innovations-depend-on-todays-opportunities-for-youth/#41c95d3681c4
    , @Curle
    This woman. Try and contain your laughter.

    https://www.whitman.edu/newsroom/whitman-magazine/whitman-magazine-summer-2016/wm-feature-stories-summer-2016/the-african-century
  152. @vinteuil
    Why must there always be a pissing scene?

    When will the directors ever get over the idea that showing the protagonist pissing is cool & edgy? and not just stale & conformist?

    Feh.

    I’m with you dude. Another thing that sets off my “they have no idea where the plot is going” radar is to have the main character throw up. That and a dream sequence. C’mon, man!

  153. @guest
    Apologizing only makes you more likely to be cashed in. "See, he admits it!"

    Indeed. This lesson should have been widely absorbed with Skip Gates’ Harvard cop episode.

  154. @guest
    Not necessarily. Often it has blood in it, for instance.

    Kidney infections will render urine non-sterile, too.

  155. @Hibernian
    I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein. That appealed to the tribalism in me!

    BTW, is Poincare related to the public official Poincare?

    Yes, Henry, the mathematician, and Raymond, president during the third French Republic and WWI , were cousins.

  156. @AnotherDad

    Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.
     
    I'll say. He comes across as darn near a left-creationist. He isn't say Watson was unfairly Watsoned, he's saying something like "hey it's been a few years ... and maybe he's recanted." Coyne's comments about Watson's comments are dismissive--"no evidence." Not the case. There's plenty of evidence. It's just not firm. What we don't have--yet--is really solid determinative DNA evidence. But that's mostly because we don't yet know all the genes are involved in "intelligence" almost certainly because there are so damn many of them.

    And his commenters ... holy cow, what a bunch of nitwits. The left creationists are really out in force. Why do people like this bother to study evolutionary biology or ... anything! Their brains are impenetrable as cement blocks.

    ~~

    This is not very complicated. And it doesn't take James Watson or a PhD in biology, even a guy with a physics degree like me can figure it out:

    Any trait that commonly varies between people--i.e. is not *fixed* (e.g. ten fingers, ten toes), should vary to at least some extent between population groups.

    This is--i'd say--"just math". Guys and gals are humping all the time; people are dying from this, that or the other thing all the time. If a trait isn't fixed in the population, then every time someone is born or dies the population mean moves. It would be the height of absurd coincidence to have the selection pressures in two different population groups with different geographic\climatic and cultural environments yield the exactly same selection. And, obviously, where the groups' environments and hence their selection pressures are far apart, you'd expect group differences to be further apart.

    A less "just math" and more "bio" corollary:

    "It would be very odd to not have distinct differences in mental traits between population groups separated during these last 10,000 years, given the neolithic revolution and all the follow on development of agriculture, civilization, social stratification, trade, metal work, written languages, bureaucracy, etc. etc."

    What the heck would selection be working on these last 10,000 if not mental traits? I can think of disease resistance very being significant as well. But selection for people with the mental makeup to survive, prosper and leave more offspring in these new environments would be huge.


    It boggles my mind that anyone who thinks they are studying evolution or evolutionary biology can not understand these two points. Or it would boggle my mind, except that life experience has convinced me that most people--even people who think they are studying something--have very little ability and\or desire to think critically, and even less desire to challenge their orthodoxy.

    We have all the circumstantial evidence conceivable. Look at black populations anywhere on earth, over hundreds of years of history. Wherever they go, they take Africa with them. Of course it’s genetic.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    But we don't even need evidence -- theory itself is dispositive.
  157. @Joe Schmoe

    There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

     

    A public university is the government. If a private university doesn't want to let you speak, that is up to them. If it is public, then it is the government prohibiting you from speaking.

    Well, if we can work a free speech angle to Title IX, I’m all for it.

  158. LOL, someone edited out “James D. Watson” from the list of “James Watson” individuals. I guess because of his crimethink he no longer qualifies as “scientist and scholar”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson_%28disambiguation%29

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    Umm, he was the first one listed.
  159. @dearieme
    Watson didn't discover DNA. Crick and Watson discovered its structure.

    A distinction without difference.

    • Replies: @Jim
    No not at all. Nucleic acids had been known of since the late nineteenth century but their fundamental role in all biological phenomena was not at all obvious. Understanding their structure was the crucial breakthrough.
    , @dearieme
    On the contrary, your misunderstanding would deny credit to the discoverers of DNA, you silly fellow.
  160. @Broski
    There are plenty of dull hardworkers whose good values and enthusiasm for work make them rich. They're not inventing new market exploits or surgical products, however.

    Well-off? Sure. Rich? I guess that depends how you define it.

  161. @Erik Sieven
    "And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."
    are they as bright as other STEM people?
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    thanks I think I forgot this blog entry. In the case of Germany I think the medical students are a mix of quite clever ones and less clever ones. One part of them are allowed to study medicine because they had extremely good grades in school, another part because they were determined enough to wait for years to get in university
  162. @Joe Schmoe

    There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

     

    A public university is the government. If a private university doesn't want to let you speak, that is up to them. If it is public, then it is the government prohibiting you from speaking.

    I think some conservative legal groups have won legal victories for conservative, or at least not totally brainwashed, students on this basis. I think their have been actions on contractual grounds at private schools but I’m not sure how much if any success those have had.

  163. @Jim Don Bob
    Here are some of his thought crimes:

    "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."

    "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."

    "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

    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 you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”.

    Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.

    To be fair, this is a shitty thing to say.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And in this day and age, you'd cut out at least a third of your candidates from the get go.
  164. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jimmyriddle
    >If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too

    Possibly - she did write this in a report, a year before Crick & Watson's announcement:

    “The results suggest a helical structure (which must be very closely packed) containing 2, 3 or 4 co‐axial nucleic acid chains per helical unit, and having the phosphate groups near the outside.”


    But the Nobel can only be shared 3 ways (at most) which doesn't always fit the facts - eg
    in 2013 the Physics prize was shared by Higgs & Englert, when arguably it should have been shared 5 ways with Kibble, Guralnik and Hagen.

    Curiously, if Rosalind Franklin knew hardcore crystallography, she quite possibly could have guessed the structure. Unfortunately to her, Crick turned out to understand her own field better and thus understood the importance of one experimental detail (C2 symmetry) – an antiparallel dimer in the unit cell. This was the most critical feature the “thieves” learned. (They weren’t thieves, actually. Rosy’s boss, Maurice Wilkins, couldn’t stand her, and, while himself not being able to make any sense of it, had zero problem sharing her data with known competitors from Cambridge, Crick and Watson. To add insult to injury, Wilkins got the Nobel after Franklin died.)

  165. @guest
    Not necessarily. Often it has blood in it, for instance.

    Blood isn’t sterile? My god!! Somebody tell the Red Cross!

  166. @Buck Dodgers Superstar
    Here is the line that got Watson fired------"[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 went on to say that despite the desire that all human beings should be equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."



    Where is the justification for firing??

    Come on now, you are being obtuse.

    • Replies: @Buck Dodgers Superstar
    Ever use "obtuse" in a conversation with a black person??? What was their reaction?? Were you understood?? And if you were, did they beat you to a bloody pulp??
  167. @Anonymous
    LOL, someone edited out "James D. Watson" from the list of "James Watson" individuals. I guess because of his crimethink he no longer qualifies as "scientist and scholar": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson_%28disambiguation%29

    Umm, he was the first one listed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thanks, my bad!
  168. @Jim Don Bob
    Here are some of his thought crimes:

    "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."

    "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."

    "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

    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 you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”.

    If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her.

    This is standard leftist nonsense. It’s apparently evil to abort a child for perceived problems but a woman’s right to choose if she thinks it will interfere with that party she was going to or that vacation she just booked.

  169. @SPMoore8
    I can't speak for Jack D, but based on his comments here in the round I am pretty sure his comment that the DNA discovery was stolen from a Jewish woman was made with tongue firmly in cheek and in response to the prior post that was taken from an African scientist.

    /sarc’ed again. But in my self defense, I’ve heard and read the assertion that Franklin was somehow mistreated by Watson, Crick, and/or Wilkins way too many times.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    She wasn't an easy girl to get on with: she made it clear that she found most scientists to be uncultured yahoos. She could be rather the Grande Dame. Her father had an uncle who was a Viscount.
  170. @Joe Schmoe

    the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it’s really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.
     
    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don't have. It is a way for elites to maintain real competitive fitness. They get to meet and marry the smartest people.

    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person

    Judging the tree by its fruit, your definition of elite and smart could use some supplementation.

    At minimum.

  171. @SPMoore8
    I can't speak for Jack D, but based on his comments here in the round I am pretty sure his comment that the DNA discovery was stolen from a Jewish woman was made with tongue firmly in cheek and in response to the prior post that was taken from an African scientist.

    Crick made another Nobel-worthy discovery, in collaboration with the actual African scientist, that was crucial to elucidation of the genetic code. Here is the African scientist (who later won a Nobel for an unrelated contribution): https://www.google.com/search?q=Sydney+Brenner

  172. @ScarletNumber
    Umm, he was the first one listed.

    Thanks, my bad!

  173. @PiltdownMan
    Thank you, that's quite a read. If I may excerpt...

    n an interview profile for the magazine [Esquire] Watson asks rhetorically, “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” He answered: “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society.”
     

    Touched the third rail, right there.

    “I’ve wondered why people aren’t more intelligent,” Watson says. “Why isn’t everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be that societies work best when there’s a mixture of ability – the bright people would never be an army.”

    Watson’s remarks were part of the magazine’s...interviews with famous and notable people who reveal “What I’ve Learned” from life. Included are interviews with Katie Couric, actor Peter O’Toole and magicians Penn & Teller, among others.

     

    I wonder what Katie Couric learned from life as compared to the discoverer of the Double Helix.

    Watson says his own politics have evolved from the left to libertarianism. He said he “turned against the left wing” because “they don’t like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have had bad genes.”
    ...
    “I think now we’re in a terrible situation where we should pay the rich people to have children.” He says if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ levels will most definitely fall.

     

    Maybe that was the third rail.

    The strange thing is that very smart people often make very poor parents. All their obsessing over this and that gives little time for children, if they have any at all.

    A society with many very smart people would probably have many emotionally stunted and self obsessed loners as children and have trouble reproducing itself.

    That has probably already happened in the west where the birthrate of aristocrats and technocrats has been reduced for centuries. This is to some degree anecdotal, although I have read that the birth rate of wealthy Anglicans was far below Catholics.

    In fact I have also read that Eugenics was not and never really was about raising intelligence or purifying the race, etc etc etc, (mouth open and gagging)….

    …but about destroying the fecundity of the lower classes by attacking their offspring as sub human and reinforcing social and political control over them by the wealthy.

    Unfortunately for the super intelligent Hitler with his average intelligence destroyed Eugenics as an idea in the west. Never mind say the super intelligent we can destroy the family with the sexual revolution and abortion, I prefer sexual decadence to uniforms and medals anyway.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    I read your comment twice, just to be sure. So many assertions, so little evidence. I feel you should go back to the HuffPo or Salon where such shit is enthusiastically upvoted. In these parts it don't work
  174. @donut
    OK ,OK , I see how it is now , bitch . You've got the control so you're going to f88k with me right ? Well here is my sincere prayer for you . That little bathmat patch of green you call a lawn ? is going to shrivel up and die and in the end look just like your bald head . You better get some gravel up in that bitch .

    “That little bathmat patch of green you call a lawn ? is going to shrivel up and die and in the end look just like your bald head .”
    You killed Steves rabbit, didn’t you!

    • Replies: @donut
    Yes, yes I did and this is how I cooked him :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmgYaWsh7qE

    Coleman's mustard powder BTW .

  175. @AnotherDad

    Jerry Coyne does plenty of crimestopping on his own blog.
     
    I'll say. He comes across as darn near a left-creationist. He isn't say Watson was unfairly Watsoned, he's saying something like "hey it's been a few years ... and maybe he's recanted." Coyne's comments about Watson's comments are dismissive--"no evidence." Not the case. There's plenty of evidence. It's just not firm. What we don't have--yet--is really solid determinative DNA evidence. But that's mostly because we don't yet know all the genes are involved in "intelligence" almost certainly because there are so damn many of them.

    And his commenters ... holy cow, what a bunch of nitwits. The left creationists are really out in force. Why do people like this bother to study evolutionary biology or ... anything! Their brains are impenetrable as cement blocks.

    ~~

    This is not very complicated. And it doesn't take James Watson or a PhD in biology, even a guy with a physics degree like me can figure it out:

    Any trait that commonly varies between people--i.e. is not *fixed* (e.g. ten fingers, ten toes), should vary to at least some extent between population groups.

    This is--i'd say--"just math". Guys and gals are humping all the time; people are dying from this, that or the other thing all the time. If a trait isn't fixed in the population, then every time someone is born or dies the population mean moves. It would be the height of absurd coincidence to have the selection pressures in two different population groups with different geographic\climatic and cultural environments yield the exactly same selection. And, obviously, where the groups' environments and hence their selection pressures are far apart, you'd expect group differences to be further apart.

    A less "just math" and more "bio" corollary:

    "It would be very odd to not have distinct differences in mental traits between population groups separated during these last 10,000 years, given the neolithic revolution and all the follow on development of agriculture, civilization, social stratification, trade, metal work, written languages, bureaucracy, etc. etc."

    What the heck would selection be working on these last 10,000 if not mental traits? I can think of disease resistance very being significant as well. But selection for people with the mental makeup to survive, prosper and leave more offspring in these new environments would be huge.


    It boggles my mind that anyone who thinks they are studying evolution or evolutionary biology can not understand these two points. Or it would boggle my mind, except that life experience has convinced me that most people--even people who think they are studying something--have very little ability and\or desire to think critically, and even less desire to challenge their orthodoxy.

    Nicely argued. How naïve of you to think that “critical thinking” is useful today; September 9, 2016, or maybe September 10, well, whatever today is. How pleasant it has been to have heard from you.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    The Current Year's ethos makes it very difficult for intelligent people to grasp the sensible, even intuitive points that AnotherDad made so well in #113 above. Akin to talented physicians who are also Creationists, Left-creationist biologists can get along fine in most subdisciplines. They'll never be brilliantly unconventional thinkers like Greg Cochran. But his is an unusual phenotype; most wouldn't be anyway.

    For a cautious exploration of human evolution in the Holocene, there is Nicholas Wade's book "A Troublesome Inheritance". Cochran and the late Henry Harpending wrote the more daring "The 10,000 Year Explosion." Sailer has reviewed both; his essays are good introductions for readers who are new to this story.
  176. Ironic, ain’t it. The discovery of the structure of DNA did more to advance understanding of true racial differences and put it on a solid chemical, biological footing. Took race out of the realm of religion, simple bigotry, and platonic formalism. Did more to actually improve race relations than probably any other single scientific discovery. Yet, this same discoverer is being crucified by the so-called anti-racists. LOL and sad.

    • Replies: @Rob McX

    The discovery of the structure of DNA did more to advance understanding of true racial differences and put it on a solid chemical, biological footing.
     
    Maybe that's why they hate him. SJWs would like a world that combines 21st century leftism with a 15th century comprehension of racial differences.
  177. Evidence is so nineteenth century. Passion is far superior, and beautiful. We don’t need no stinking evidence!

  178. @ScarletNumber

    Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.
     
    To be fair, this is a shitty thing to say.

    And in this day and age, you’d cut out at least a third of your candidates from the get go.

  179. @Broski
    We have all the circumstantial evidence conceivable. Look at black populations anywhere on earth, over hundreds of years of history. Wherever they go, they take Africa with them. Of course it's genetic.

    But we don’t even need evidence — theory itself is dispositive.

  180. @ScarletNumber
    A distinction without difference.

    No not at all. Nucleic acids had been known of since the late nineteenth century but their fundamental role in all biological phenomena was not at all obvious. Understanding their structure was the crucial breakthrough.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    A crucial discovery was that it was DNA, and not anything else, that was the agent of heredity -- i.e., carried the genes. This result was both surprising and very hard to establish.

    Oswald Avery was the discoverer, and may represent the scientist most unfairly denied the Nobel Prize:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery

    , @dearieme
    Avery was building on a result of Griffiths that he didn't believe at first. Griffiths identified that there was a "transformational factor" for bacteria i.e. something that could transform one strain into another. Colleagues of Avery's first repeated Griffiths' experiments, and proved him right. Avery and his colleagues then demonstrated that the "factor" was DNA (a substance known for decades): not everyone was persuaded, but Crick and Watson (and others) thought it convincing. What was missing was an explanation of how DNA pulled off the trick. That's what Crick and Watson supplied.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Griffith
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery
  181. @Anonymous
    The same Jewish tribalists bitching about Rosalind Franklin's obscurity do not give a damn about the expungement of Poincare and Lorentz in favor of the superbeing Einstein.

    It was the Lorentz-Einstein Theory after all ... until it magically became Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and -- at least in America -- they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker. Now all are taught in school the myth of this miracle worker.

    Poincare is universally recognized as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. The Lorentz group bears Lorentz’s name.

    I would say that while Minkowski did not discover the Special Theory of Relativity he was perhaps the first to understand it.

  182. @scrivener3
    Asking a bit from the dispenser of free ice cream.

    Hear him! Hear him!

  183. @Ben Frank
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. " - Nietzsche. USA fought USSR but now that they are gone, we have become more like them.
    1. Government integration with big business including Wall St., GM and health insurance.
    2. Media generally repeating the government propaganda line.
    3. Suppression of Christianity and the natural family.
    4. Military adventurism and subversion of foreign governments.
    5. Elites using criminal classes to weaken the middle class.
    6. Disposal of politically-incorrect science.

    And yet we still sneer condescendingly at Soviet Lysenkoism, and how those barbaric savages let ideology blind them to elementary truths.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  184. @Jim
    No not at all. Nucleic acids had been known of since the late nineteenth century but their fundamental role in all biological phenomena was not at all obvious. Understanding their structure was the crucial breakthrough.

    A crucial discovery was that it was DNA, and not anything else, that was the agent of heredity — i.e., carried the genes. This result was both surprising and very hard to establish.

    Oswald Avery was the discoverer, and may represent the scientist most unfairly denied the Nobel Prize:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery

  185. @donut
    He's welcome here in our rough company . Completely ot :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzsXGa1KAyk

    from a poem by Christopher Marlowe who IIRC was murdered in a tavern in a dispute over the bill .

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/44675

    “from a poem by Christopher Marlowe who IIRC was murdered in a tavern in a dispute over the bill .”

    Wow! I read that as “HRC” – I was thinking that she’s bad and old, but not that bad and old.

  186. @Jim Don Bob
    Speaking the truth. Name me one person who is optimistic about Africa.

    “Speaking the truth. Name me one person who is optimistic about Africa.”

    Bill Gates believes Africans are the future.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tobyshapshak/2016/07/17/bill-gates-on-africa-tomorrows-innovations-depend-on-todays-opportunities-for-youth/#41c95d3681c4

  187. @Anonymous
    The same Jewish tribalists bitching about Rosalind Franklin's obscurity do not give a damn about the expungement of Poincare and Lorentz in favor of the superbeing Einstein.

    It was the Lorentz-Einstein Theory after all ... until it magically became Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and -- at least in America -- they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker. Now all are taught in school the myth of this miracle worker.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and — at least in America — they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker.

    If you study physics and get to the topic of special relativity, you learn about the Lorentz transform, whether in America or elsewhere. Similarly, if you are a math major, it is impossible to not learn about Henri Poincaré.

  188. @Dr. X

    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.
     
    Well, I have to say, I've tried exactly that mysef, and let me assure you that the outcome wasn't much fun at all.

    There may enough people like us trying to do such scholarship that it’s worth considering opening an internet journal dedicated to this kind of research, especially in social science disciplines that have openly discriminated against conservatives – and mostly gotten away with it. What do you think about that idea?

  189. @The Alarmist

    "... that this runs counter to our mission of diversity and inclusion at NYU Langone Medical Center and have thus elected to cancel the lecture."
     
    Uh, Ok? You promote diversity and inclusion, but you refuse to include someone with an opinion diverse from yours. How's that diversity and inclusion stuff supposed to work again?

    Just compare the etymological roots of “diversity” and “diversion.”

    The medical establishment is bashing on about “diversity” as a diversion from what they are up to. Which is turning every aspect of our embodied existence–our life, the ills flesh is heir to, our healing, our habits, our genes–into a new form of real estate to be managed for corporate profit.

    This is in the very DNA of Near Eastern/Mediterranean/Jewish agricultural urban civilization and its Abrahamic offshoots: real estate and mercantilization.

    The writing has been on the wall on this one since before I was in grad school. In 1980, SCOTUS granted Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty a patent on a life form. This was the highest court in our land declaring living organisms to be intellectual property, which is to say real estate, which could be managed for profit.

    A lot of the current nonsense we are tsunami’ed with regarding race and “diversity” is diversion from what is going on behind the scenes by Big Pharma (often the same companies as Big Agriculture). Medical schools attract in the main minds that are not all that brilliant and turn them into technicians with a lot more respect and awe than they deserve. They are a priestly caste whose powers are inflated, largely untouchable, and protected by the lugal-state.

    We can’t even get a good idea of how many maimings and deaths they cause through misdiagnosis, misdrugging/adverse drug reactions, unnecessary procedures, infections, and the like. It is a horrific cabal with more and more power–exponentially increased and solidified through Obamacare. They cause many more deaths than guns, auto accidents, etc., annually…but somehow get to slip past notice.

    Because James Watson said something about fatsos.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    Been there. Done that. Agree 100%. Wouldn't let most of my classmates touch my cat.
  190. @Hibernian
    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.

    People like Bush-appointed Republican Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School district, the landmark ID case?

    From his decision:

    “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    It is a religious view. It is not a mere "re-labeling" of anything. It involves belief that God created the world; it doesn't ask us to believe He created it in seven days.
  191. Hahahahaha

    Now i know where not to work, and not to support

  192. @Hacienda
    Ironic, ain't it. The discovery of the structure of DNA did more to advance understanding of true racial differences and put it on a solid chemical, biological footing. Took race out of the realm of religion, simple bigotry, and platonic formalism. Did more to actually improve race relations than probably any other single scientific discovery. Yet, this same discoverer is being crucified by the so-called anti-racists. LOL and sad.

    The discovery of the structure of DNA did more to advance understanding of true racial differences and put it on a solid chemical, biological footing.

    Maybe that’s why they hate him. SJWs would like a world that combines 21st century leftism with a 15th century comprehension of racial differences.

  193. @Hibernian
    I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein. That appealed to the tribalism in me!

    BTW, is Poincare related to the public official Poincare?

    “I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein.” So was I but I am old. And not American.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I am (kind of) old, and American. I learned about Fitzgerald and Lorentz in the early 70s in high school physics.
    , @Jim
    The actual history of how scientific theories develop is usually a lot more complicated than the "great man" popular accounts. I believe that Einstein did say at one time that he had not read and was not familiar with Poincare's writing on the relativity and simultaneity.
  194. @Joe Schmoe

    There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

     

    A public university is the government. If a private university doesn't want to let you speak, that is up to them. If it is public, then it is the government prohibiting you from speaking.

    “If a private university doesn’t want to let you speak, that is up to them.” if the private university subsists in large measure off government research grants and government student loans, should it be viewed as private for these purposes? Put otherwise, if it were excluding leftie and Democrat speakers, would it be viewed as private?

  195. @Antonymous
    At least Lorentz transformations bear his name, but true, no general recognition. Einstein's career output is curious -- even NAS studied whether his wife played a role in his first four papers, all published in one year with no followup until general relativity. And not much beyond GR either. Our first celebrity scientist with more hype than deserved?

    It’s spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.

    But he’s still the second greatest mathematical physicist ever. You can’t really deny him that status just because, for example, much of the wit and wisdom attributed to him is bogus, or because he was selfish to the point of dishonesty about giving due credit to others. Or even because he may have bumped off his daughter. The two relativities guarantee him that status, and will do so even when they are eventually replaced by other theories. The fact that his Nobel was not for Special Relativity may just be some doleful Swedish joke.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I can't think of any rock star who had a second act like the General Theory of Relativity eleven years after the first act. It's like if John Lennon had invented hip-hop in 1975.
    , @dr kill
    His Nobel was for explaining the particle theory of light. I might be wrong about this, but I know he didn't get it for general or special relativity.
    , @syonredux

    It’s spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.
     
    Off-hand, I would say that Alan Turing is probably Einstein's greatest rival in the 20th century celebrity scientist sweepstakes. In Turing's case, he gets more hype than he deserves because (i) he was Gay, (ii) the British have turned Bletchley Park into a kind of national cult, and (iii) he killed himself.
  196. @ScarletNumber
    A distinction without difference.

    On the contrary, your misunderstanding would deny credit to the discoverers of DNA, you silly fellow.

  197. @dearieme
    It's spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.

    But he's still the second greatest mathematical physicist ever. You can't really deny him that status just because, for example, much of the wit and wisdom attributed to him is bogus, or because he was selfish to the point of dishonesty about giving due credit to others. Or even because he may have bumped off his daughter. The two relativities guarantee him that status, and will do so even when they are eventually replaced by other theories. The fact that his Nobel was not for Special Relativity may just be some doleful Swedish joke.

    I can’t think of any rock star who had a second act like the General Theory of Relativity eleven years after the first act. It’s like if John Lennon had invented hip-hop in 1975.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    It took Einstein a while to achieve public celebrity in America.

    In an early example of the indulging in the kind of moralistic fallacy it now regularly espouses in its op-ed pages and article, the New York Times was outraged that only some people could understand Relativity and declared

    “The Declaration of Independence itself is outraged by the assertion that there is anything on earth, or in interstellar space, that can be understood by only the chosen few.”

    And then Einstein visited America in 1921 as part of a Zionist delegation headed by Chaim Weizmann and it was all good.

  198. @Jus' Sayin'...
    /sarc'ed again. But in my self defense, I've heard and read the assertion that Franklin was somehow mistreated by Watson, Crick, and/or Wilkins way too many times.

    She wasn’t an easy girl to get on with: she made it clear that she found most scientists to be uncultured yahoos. She could be rather the Grande Dame. Her father had an uncle who was a Viscount.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Rosalind Franklin was from a well to do upper crust family, and socially speaking, easily held her own against many of her colleagues, who were from a more plebian background. These things mattered in England in the 1950s.

    John Randall, who founded and headed the Biophysics lab at King's College, hired Rosalind Franklin, a highly regarded crystallographer, to augment the talent in his team and to work with Maurice Wilkins.

    A possibly aggravating factor was that Randall left reporting lines for the new hire unclear. Wilkins thought she kind of worked for him; Franklin had a different impression.

    Francis Crick became close friends with Rosalind Franklin after she moved to Birbeck College and he and his wife remained so through Franklin's final illness in the few years that followed.

    Watson made a disparaging comment about her in his book 'The Double Helix' a decade after her death, but apologized soon after.

    I'm not sure what the iSteve rules are on providing links back to earlier posts by Steve, but this topic was discussed here at some length, a while ago.

    https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/100th-birthday-of-crimethinker-francis-crick/

  199. @Steve Sailer
    I can't think of any rock star who had a second act like the General Theory of Relativity eleven years after the first act. It's like if John Lennon had invented hip-hop in 1975.

    It took Einstein a while to achieve public celebrity in America.

    In an early example of the indulging in the kind of moralistic fallacy it now regularly espouses in its op-ed pages and article, the New York Times was outraged that only some people could understand Relativity and declared

    “The Declaration of Independence itself is outraged by the assertion that there is anything on earth, or in interstellar space, that can be understood by only the chosen few.”

    And then Einstein visited America in 1921 as part of a Zionist delegation headed by Chaim Weizmann and it was all good.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How is that a "moralistic fallacy"?

    I enjoy your posts, so this is an earnest question.
  200. @Neil Templeton
    Nicely argued. How naïve of you to think that "critical thinking" is useful today; September 9, 2016, or maybe September 10, well, whatever today is. How pleasant it has been to have heard from you.

    The Current Year’s ethos makes it very difficult for intelligent people to grasp the sensible, even intuitive points that AnotherDad made so well in #113 above. Akin to talented physicians who are also Creationists, Left-creationist biologists can get along fine in most subdisciplines. They’ll never be brilliantly unconventional thinkers like Greg Cochran. But his is an unusual phenotype; most wouldn’t be anyway.

    For a cautious exploration of human evolution in the Holocene, there is Nicholas Wade’s book “A Troublesome Inheritance”. Cochran and the late Henry Harpending wrote the more daring “The 10,000 Year Explosion.” Sailer has reviewed both; his essays are good introductions for readers who are new to this story.

  201. @dearieme
    She wasn't an easy girl to get on with: she made it clear that she found most scientists to be uncultured yahoos. She could be rather the Grande Dame. Her father had an uncle who was a Viscount.

    Rosalind Franklin was from a well to do upper crust family, and socially speaking, easily held her own against many of her colleagues, who were from a more plebian background. These things mattered in England in the 1950s.

    John Randall, who founded and headed the Biophysics lab at King’s College, hired Rosalind Franklin, a highly regarded crystallographer, to augment the talent in his team and to work with Maurice Wilkins.

    A possibly aggravating factor was that Randall left reporting lines for the new hire unclear. Wilkins thought she kind of worked for him; Franklin had a different impression.

    Francis Crick became close friends with Rosalind Franklin after she moved to Birbeck College and he and his wife remained so through Franklin’s final illness in the few years that followed.

    Watson made a disparaging comment about her in his book ‘The Double Helix’ a decade after her death, but apologized soon after.

    I’m not sure what the iSteve rules are on providing links back to earlier posts by Steve, but this topic was discussed here at some length, a while ago.

    https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/100th-birthday-of-crimethinker-francis-crick/

  202. Jerry Coyne is another New Atheist science populizer who takes shots at SJW antics to show he’s not one of the “extremists”, yet has too little self-awareness to not only notice that such antics are rooted in the Left but it was the likes of him who worked to set the stage for them through their repeat attacks on Christiandom. Even when he takes on Mohammedans, he (along with other New Atheists) goes on about how they keep womyn down or “free speech” (and so still keeping to a Lefty spin).

    And his blog draws in Leftoids. I’m talking cop attacking BLM supporters, white knights for “Refugees” and/or Mohammedans (complete with spitting the claim of how Muzzies never attacked other creeds even within their territories), feminists, you name it.

  203. If it wasn’t for the legacy of slavery and White patriachal oppression, a black woman would have discovered the structure of DNA before Watson. It can’t be hard if even an ignorant bigot can do it.

  204. @Jim
    No not at all. Nucleic acids had been known of since the late nineteenth century but their fundamental role in all biological phenomena was not at all obvious. Understanding their structure was the crucial breakthrough.

    Avery was building on a result of Griffiths that he didn’t believe at first. Griffiths identified that there was a “transformational factor” for bacteria i.e. something that could transform one strain into another. Colleagues of Avery’s first repeated Griffiths’ experiments, and proved him right. Avery and his colleagues then demonstrated that the “factor” was DNA (a substance known for decades): not everyone was persuaded, but Crick and Watson (and others) thought it convincing. What was missing was an explanation of how DNA pulled off the trick. That’s what Crick and Watson supplied.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Griffith
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery

    • Replies: @dearieme
    ops, "Griffith"
    , @Jim
    Accounts of scientific breakthroughs are often simplified to a single solitary genius doing everything on his or her own. The actual history is usually a lot more complicated. But certainly just discovering the existence of DNA is a long way from understanding it's biological role. So ScarletNumber's comment is not correct.
  205. @dearieme
    Avery was building on a result of Griffiths that he didn't believe at first. Griffiths identified that there was a "transformational factor" for bacteria i.e. something that could transform one strain into another. Colleagues of Avery's first repeated Griffiths' experiments, and proved him right. Avery and his colleagues then demonstrated that the "factor" was DNA (a substance known for decades): not everyone was persuaded, but Crick and Watson (and others) thought it convincing. What was missing was an explanation of how DNA pulled off the trick. That's what Crick and Watson supplied.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Griffith
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery

    ops, “Griffith”

    • Replies: @dearieme
    oops, "oops".
  206. @dearieme
    ops, "Griffith"

    oops, “oops”.

  207. @Chrisnonymous
    Razib Khan answers all your questions...

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/

    thanks I think I forgot this blog entry. In the case of Germany I think the medical students are a mix of quite clever ones and less clever ones. One part of them are allowed to study medicine because they had extremely good grades in school, another part because they were determined enough to wait for years to get in university

  208. @larry lurker

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.
     
    People like Bush-appointed Republican Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School district, the landmark ID case?

    From his decision:

    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
     

    It is a religious view. It is not a mere “re-labeling” of anything. It involves belief that God created the world; it doesn’t ask us to believe He created it in seven days.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    What I remember from the case is that it was shown convincingly that a lot of Discovery Institute material was nothing more than rebranding of old school creationism. Rebranding as in "replace creator with intelligent designer in this text". That basic and dumb. Anti-evolutionists received a well deserved beating in that case, sorry.
  209. @dearieme
    "I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein." So was I but I am old. And not American.

    I am (kind of) old, and American. I learned about Fitzgerald and Lorentz in the early 70s in high school physics.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Full marks to your high school physics teacher, then.

    (It's a pity that it's so rare for people to visit their old schools and thank their teachers. By the time it occurred to me, the four I'd have thanked had moved elsewhere. Do people ever do it on social media, do you know?)
    , @Ivy
    Well, you have just burst my bubble. I am about your vintage and am now apparently (kind of) old. Funny, I don't feel old except when random aches interfere with getting out of bed in the morning. When that slides to the afternoon, I will have arrived.
    In other news, here is a book recommendation for all and sundry: Age of Fracture, by Daniel T. Rodgers.
  210. @Joe Schmoe

    the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it’s really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.
     
    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don't have. It is a way for elites to maintain real competitive fitness. They get to meet and marry the smartest people.

    “Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don’t have.”

    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies … not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies … not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.


    Totally false. You don't know what you're talking about.
    , @Hibernian
    I'd say that's one reason, but more important is that they were smart enough to be admitted.
  211. @PiltdownMan

    If James D. Watson is a 1000 watt bulb then the student average at NYU School of Medicine is 100 watts.
     
    Nah, more like 5 watts. Watson ranks as a titan in the history of science.

    And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM.

    ‘And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM.”

    As the field of medicine has become increasingly feminized it has been dumbed down and is now more emotion, less scientific based. This is why there’s been such a rise in alternative medicine, faith based healing and other quackery that appeals to women. As Heartiste once said, the idea of “magic” and hidden knowledge i.e. the zodiac, is “chick crack”

    • Replies: @frizzled
    But magic is real. That's something that is becoming increasingly clear.

    Faith based healing works, because placebos work. Quackery works. When it comes to human beings, feelz do equal reals. The zodiac and Friday 13 and the rest have measurable, statistically significant effects on human health.

    STEM types, concrete based thinkers with objectivity fetishes, don't like to hear this, but human beings are not the same as other kinds of objects you can study. Because humans are social animals that care deeply about how other humans behave, and studying humans changes their behavior. All of the assumptions about objectivity are suspect. As Steve says himself, psychology isn't science, it's marketing research. Human behavior isn't some kind of fixed variable you can produce eternal verities about.

    Here's something else: describing a disease can create the disease. Ever wonder why there are so many transgenders these days?

    , @dcite
    oy vey. "Magic" and "hidden knowledge" has been the mainstay of all-male brotherhoods from time immemorial. Even upholsterers in 17th century France had to swear an oath not to reveal the tricks of their trade to women, among others -- scene from a French Moliere bio.
    Much medicine down through the ages, by and large male as far as its titled practitioners go, has been based on "magic" and what would now be called "alternative treatments." Some has been proven effective under certain circumstances. Paraclesus, Father of Toxicology and Enemy of Physicians, a famous doctor of his day, for what it was worth, said most of his knowledge had come from midwives and old women herbalists. Hey, you got it where you could find it in those days. Some worked, some didn't. Medicine/doctors did make progress steadily through the 19th century, but only as innumerable dogs were dissected alive (a badge of SJW in the 19th c. was to be anti-vivisectionist and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was est. in the 1820s, in the wake of the horrible stories), and the more humane doctors concentrated on finding anesthetics.
    "Holistic" is not "magic." It is looking at the body as an entire system, and this is not peculiarl to one sex. Who really believes wholeheartedly in the good intentions of big pharma and the AMA? When Salk vaccine was contaminated with SP40 cancer causing monkey virus, in 1953-1963 (threw all that bad vaccine away immediately?), the whistle blower was a Dr. Bernice Eddy of NIH whose career was pretty much walled off after she blew the whistle at the 11th hour. Blackballed, she became friends with Dr. Sara Stewart, almost unknown today, who proved that some cancers were caused by viruses.
    Anecdotally I am familiar with accolades for physicians and surgeons (particularly plastic surgeons which is not surprising) of the female gender. Some who are less impressive, go by the official party-line, and totally in the pocket for big pharma and the AMA. Alternative physicians come in both sexes. Some 13 of them, many of whom were having success with alternative treatments for things like autism, cancer etc., died suddenly and oddly in 201516. Most were male actually. All were very courageous. http://www.naturalnews.com/052975_holistic_doctor_deaths_thermography_cancer_detection.html

    (naturally the links you find are not WaPo or NYT and we know they have to report it for it to be believable. yes indeed)
    , @Hibernian
    A little more holistic medicine and a little less better living through chemistry would be a feature, not a bug. IMHO women physicians are just as drug oriented as the men.
  212. @PiltdownMan
    It took Einstein a while to achieve public celebrity in America.

    In an early example of the indulging in the kind of moralistic fallacy it now regularly espouses in its op-ed pages and article, the New York Times was outraged that only some people could understand Relativity and declared

    “The Declaration of Independence itself is outraged by the assertion that there is anything on earth, or in interstellar space, that can be understood by only the chosen few.”

    And then Einstein visited America in 1921 as part of a Zionist delegation headed by Chaim Weizmann and it was all good.

    How is that a “moralistic fallacy”?

    I enjoy your posts, so this is an earnest question.

  213. @Johnny Smoggins
    'And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."

    As the field of medicine has become increasingly feminized it has been dumbed down and is now more emotion, less scientific based. This is why there's been such a rise in alternative medicine, faith based healing and other quackery that appeals to women. As Heartiste once said, the idea of "magic" and hidden knowledge i.e. the zodiac, is "chick crack"

    But magic is real. That’s something that is becoming increasingly clear.

    Faith based healing works, because placebos work. Quackery works. When it comes to human beings, feelz do equal reals. The zodiac and Friday 13 and the rest have measurable, statistically significant effects on human health.

    STEM types, concrete based thinkers with objectivity fetishes, don’t like to hear this, but human beings are not the same as other kinds of objects you can study. Because humans are social animals that care deeply about how other humans behave, and studying humans changes their behavior. All of the assumptions about objectivity are suspect. As Steve says himself, psychology isn’t science, it’s marketing research. Human behavior isn’t some kind of fixed variable you can produce eternal verities about.

    Here’s something else: describing a disease can create the disease. Ever wonder why there are so many transgenders these days?

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    This blog has a definite bias towards High IQ STEM value, as such it is bound to deprecate any irrational elements in life. Having said that there is quite a bit of life that is bound by habit and routine, including examined beliefs, and including all sort is interactions between humans, their environments, and whatever that thing we call "self" which probably in many cases have not and never will yield to rational explanation.

    So the short answer is that there are a whole lot of things we don't understand, either in terms of manifestation and causation, and I guess we can call it "magic" or anything else. But the whole point of our culture is to recognize that, while yes, there are a lot of things we call "magic", and while recognition of these things may in fact lead to a happier life and end of life, that doesn't mean we have to fetishize them and not try to understand them.

    So I agree that magic is real and that some part of human life is bound to be irrational. But the things that fall under those headings are likely to change from time to time.
    , @The Pelican
    Hah, this is true. I know a middle aged woman who has been eating peanuts all her life, but who in recent years has got it into her head that she's allergic to peanuts and - this is the interesting part- now becomes genuinely physically ill when she eats a peanut.
  214. @Hibernian
    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.

    Incorrect. Both creationism and ID are equally non-scientific, because they posit a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    ID reconciles faith with reason. I realize that's more than a little too Jesuitical for a lot of people.
  215. @dearieme
    Avery was building on a result of Griffiths that he didn't believe at first. Griffiths identified that there was a "transformational factor" for bacteria i.e. something that could transform one strain into another. Colleagues of Avery's first repeated Griffiths' experiments, and proved him right. Avery and his colleagues then demonstrated that the "factor" was DNA (a substance known for decades): not everyone was persuaded, but Crick and Watson (and others) thought it convincing. What was missing was an explanation of how DNA pulled off the trick. That's what Crick and Watson supplied.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Griffith
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery

    Accounts of scientific breakthroughs are often simplified to a single solitary genius doing everything on his or her own. The actual history is usually a lot more complicated. But certainly just discovering the existence of DNA is a long way from understanding it’s biological role. So ScarletNumber’s comment is not correct.

  216. @Johnny Smoggins
    'And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."

    As the field of medicine has become increasingly feminized it has been dumbed down and is now more emotion, less scientific based. This is why there's been such a rise in alternative medicine, faith based healing and other quackery that appeals to women. As Heartiste once said, the idea of "magic" and hidden knowledge i.e. the zodiac, is "chick crack"

    oy vey. “Magic” and “hidden knowledge” has been the mainstay of all-male brotherhoods from time immemorial. Even upholsterers in 17th century France had to swear an oath not to reveal the tricks of their trade to women, among others — scene from a French Moliere bio.
    Much medicine down through the ages, by and large male as far as its titled practitioners go, has been based on “magic” and what would now be called “alternative treatments.” Some has been proven effective under certain circumstances. Paraclesus, Father of Toxicology and Enemy of Physicians, a famous doctor of his day, for what it was worth, said most of his knowledge had come from midwives and old women herbalists. Hey, you got it where you could find it in those days. Some worked, some didn’t. Medicine/doctors did make progress steadily through the 19th century, but only as innumerable dogs were dissected alive (a badge of SJW in the 19th c. was to be anti-vivisectionist and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was est. in the 1820s, in the wake of the horrible stories), and the more humane doctors concentrated on finding anesthetics.
    “Holistic” is not “magic.” It is looking at the body as an entire system, and this is not peculiarl to one sex. Who really believes wholeheartedly in the good intentions of big pharma and the AMA? When Salk vaccine was contaminated with SP40 cancer causing monkey virus, in 1953-1963 (threw all that bad vaccine away immediately?), the whistle blower was a Dr. Bernice Eddy of NIH whose career was pretty much walled off after she blew the whistle at the 11th hour. Blackballed, she became friends with Dr. Sara Stewart, almost unknown today, who proved that some cancers were caused by viruses.
    Anecdotally I am familiar with accolades for physicians and surgeons (particularly plastic surgeons which is not surprising) of the female gender. Some who are less impressive, go by the official party-line, and totally in the pocket for big pharma and the AMA. Alternative physicians come in both sexes. Some 13 of them, many of whom were having success with alternative treatments for things like autism, cancer etc., died suddenly and oddly in 201516. Most were male actually. All were very courageous. http://www.naturalnews.com/052975_holistic_doctor_deaths_thermography_cancer_detection.html

    (naturally the links you find are not WaPo or NYT and we know they have to report it for it to be believable. yes indeed)

  217. @dearieme
    "I was taught that Fitzgerald and Lorentz were precursors of Einstein." So was I but I am old. And not American.

    The actual history of how scientific theories develop is usually a lot more complicated than the “great man” popular accounts. I believe that Einstein did say at one time that he had not read and was not familiar with Poincare’s writing on the relativity and simultaneity.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Yes, and Freud always claimed that he never read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, although their writings absolutely prefigure his own.

    The only way in which Freud is telling the truth -- not to pile on him -- is to acknowledge that ideas that are promoted by someone have a tendency to take a life of their own, and while Freud may not have read them, he probably knew, talked to, and read, people who had.

    The same goes for Einstein, or the famous Newton-Einstein priority argument. A lot of people at the same time were trying to address the same problems. Some come in first and get all the glory. Some come up with a better arrangement and are used, without as much glory (compare Newton/Leibniz, or Copernicus/Kepler). And most of the contributors never get any recognition at all.
  218. @Olorin
    Just compare the etymological roots of "diversity" and "diversion."

    The medical establishment is bashing on about "diversity" as a diversion from what they are up to. Which is turning every aspect of our embodied existence--our life, the ills flesh is heir to, our healing, our habits, our genes--into a new form of real estate to be managed for corporate profit.

    This is in the very DNA of Near Eastern/Mediterranean/Jewish agricultural urban civilization and its Abrahamic offshoots: real estate and mercantilization.

    The writing has been on the wall on this one since before I was in grad school. In 1980, SCOTUS granted Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty a patent on a life form. This was the highest court in our land declaring living organisms to be intellectual property, which is to say real estate, which could be managed for profit.

    A lot of the current nonsense we are tsunami'ed with regarding race and "diversity" is diversion from what is going on behind the scenes by Big Pharma (often the same companies as Big Agriculture). Medical schools attract in the main minds that are not all that brilliant and turn them into technicians with a lot more respect and awe than they deserve. They are a priestly caste whose powers are inflated, largely untouchable, and protected by the lugal-state.

    We can't even get a good idea of how many maimings and deaths they cause through misdiagnosis, misdrugging/adverse drug reactions, unnecessary procedures, infections, and the like. It is a horrific cabal with more and more power--exponentially increased and solidified through Obamacare. They cause many more deaths than guns, auto accidents, etc., annually...but somehow get to slip past notice.

    Because James Watson said something about fatsos.

    Been there. Done that. Agree 100%. Wouldn’t let most of my classmates touch my cat.

  219. @dearieme
    It's spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.

    But he's still the second greatest mathematical physicist ever. You can't really deny him that status just because, for example, much of the wit and wisdom attributed to him is bogus, or because he was selfish to the point of dishonesty about giving due credit to others. Or even because he may have bumped off his daughter. The two relativities guarantee him that status, and will do so even when they are eventually replaced by other theories. The fact that his Nobel was not for Special Relativity may just be some doleful Swedish joke.

    His Nobel was for explaining the particle theory of light. I might be wrong about this, but I know he didn’t get it for general or special relativity.

  220. @The Alarmist

    "Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don’t have."
     
    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies ... not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.

    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies … not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.

    Totally false. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Totally false. You don’t know what you’re talking about."
     
    Which investment banks have you worked for, troll?
  221. @SPMoore8
    We had a discussion about Ros Franklin a few months ago. The critical photograph was taken by one of her graduate students, and when he stopped working for her he took it with him. Then the others saw it and it helped their interpretation. It's not much more complicated than that.

    If Franklin had still been alive in 1962 when they won the Nobel, it is quite possible she would have received it, too. They don't hand out posthumous Nobels.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and "obese individuals".

    Does this mean that anyone who has ever disparaged Lena Dunham's appearance should never be allowed to appear out of doors? That's one way to utterly destroy public life.

    This is a highly predictable action on the part of NYU and is really no different than some college deciding 100-150 years ago to rescind an invitation to an Oscar Wilde, etc. type character for making irreverent comments about The Lord Jesus Christ. And don't think that something like that didn't happen.

    The way freedom of speech works is that it is allowed as long it doesn't affect anything anyone thinks is important. Once it touches on anything important, it is no longer considered speech worth protecting, it is considered hate speech, heresy, hurtful speech, etc. There's really no way to stop it, all we can do is try to keep the government from getting involved.

    Everyone knows you can say some things, but you can't say other things, unless you want a lot of headaches. That's just the way it goes. The fact that this particular school has put their moral principles ahead of intellectual disinterestedness is also par for the course.

    Meanwhile, I am curious to know exactly what Watson said about women and “obese individuals”.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+d+watson%22+fat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    His Wikiquote entry is the second result:
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

    Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.

  222. @mts1
    Please expand on why the alt-right should treat But Science and But Feelngs with the same respect. They are totally different paradigms, and religion is yet another altogether. Science, ideally, is boxed and framed by structure, repeatable experiments to see if similar results flow. Structure, order, hierarchy, foundations of rock not sand. Feelings can be like a dandelion seed in the wind. That's why policy based on whimsy can be right now and wrong 5 minutes later then right again tomorrow morning. Now if the science changes based on new data or changed constants (we need to reinvent our business because our standby, the beeper, was replaced by the affordable pocket cell phone) that is still rational. The alt-right won't be averse to its own emotional stupid season any more than the left.

    Emotion caused a metric chi-ton of simple life people unrealted to their hyper-successful co-ethnics to get anihilated while the 1%ers holding the Folk down had the information and wealth at hand to let them book ahead of the troubles. Remember all but one Rothschild made it through just fine, and a George Soros collaborator in the ruin of his own people lived to be the Big Man while a lot of bookeepers, deli owners, and doctors were dead to the last close relative of their family tree.

    I'm not saying go full Spock, but if you let But Feelings be the lead dog of your sled, you become as ridiculous as the left.

    Feelings aren’t allowed to have a skin in the game. As I typed, But Feelings needs more than their Pretty Lies. Like those things called facts.

    You “feel” like the average black has the intellectual horsepower of the average white, fine, then PROVE it without moving the goalposts. I would hope that the Alt-Right would acknowledge any mutually-acceptable facts.

    What you’re missing is that my reply to Corvie essentially says that though the Alt-Right should be held by the same factual standards, but possibility of Left arguing facts isn’t keeping me up at night.

  223. @Anonymous
    The same Jewish tribalists bitching about Rosalind Franklin's obscurity do not give a damn about the expungement of Poincare and Lorentz in favor of the superbeing Einstein.

    It was the Lorentz-Einstein Theory after all ... until it magically became Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

    Poincare and Lorentz were giants and -- at least in America -- they are nobodies today. This situation is a deliberate result. With them out of the picture Einstein becomes a miracle worker. Now all are taught in school the myth of this miracle worker.

    Lorentz…a lepidopterist, no?

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he’s more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?"

    His was clearly a really top grade intellect; his achievements are very impressive. But I've used only little bits of his work in maths so I can't pretend to be well equipped to judge. The prize, remember, is for physics, not maths.

    If you mean did lesser men receive Nobels, then of course. They hand them out every year, remorselessly, so the standards are bound to vary. Plus, they are awarded by mere humans, after all.

    Was he "screwed": you'd have to ask physicists. I wonder a little whether his very versatility handicapped him; not every physicist is going to smile on a man who devoted time to Engineering or Philosophy. Perhaps not every physicist would smile on a man who spent so much time on maths.

    Competition in his time was fierce, with the huge leaps in experimental physics. Thus 1901 Roentgen, 1902 Lorentz and Zeeman, 1903 The Curies and Becquerel, 1904 Lord Rayleigh, 1905 von Lenard, 1906 J J Thomson, 1907 Michelson, 1908 Lippmann, 1909 Marconi and Braun, 1910 van der Waals, 1911 Wien.

    Which of those would you kick aside in favour of Poincare, in light of the evidence available at the time?
    , @syonredux

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he’s more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.
     
    Fame is an interesting thing. Every semester, I ask my students (it's a lit class) if any of them have heard of Josiah Willard Gibbs. I've never received a positive response.On the other hand, they all know who Alan Turing was......
    , @PiltdownMan

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?
     
    I think that would be a valid question had it happened today, but for three reasons the questions is a bit moot for the world of physics and Nobel prizes in the early 20th century.

    The first is that the Nobel prizes hadn't yet acquired the cachet they have today. In fact, by happy coincidence, the Nobel prizes were instituted precisely at the start of the golden age of physics. Every year, right from the start, they were able to award the prize to someone who had accomplished something of great, historical, importance. Back then, it was the awardees who helped the Nobel acquire its reputation, not the other way around.

    There were giants in those days, and giving out the first twenty or thirty prizes in physics and chemistry to them helped secure the later reputation of the Nobels as a sort of super-prize and certification of giant intellect. For these men (and one woman-Marie Curie) the Nobel was a nice-to-have medal and a big chunk of money, but their reputations were secure without the additional stamp of the prize.

    The second is that Poincare was a mathematician, first and foremost, in the first rank of the great 19th and early 20th century mathematicians such as David Hilbert, Georg Cantor and others. As it happened, problems in physics, such as relativity, were topics to which he just happened to lend his considerable mind to, and to which he happened to make huge contributions. It would have bothered him little to have not received the recognition of a relatively new prize in physics for his work on relativity.

    The third reason is simple. Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize until 1921, 9 years after Poincare died. And he did not get it for his work on relativity, nor did anyone else get a prize for work on that area of physics in those decades.
  224. @Anonymous
    Grammar is racist

    Grammar be racist. Spellin’ too, muthafuka.

  225. @Hibernian
    I am (kind of) old, and American. I learned about Fitzgerald and Lorentz in the early 70s in high school physics.

    Full marks to your high school physics teacher, then.

    (It’s a pity that it’s so rare for people to visit their old schools and thank their teachers. By the time it occurred to me, the four I’d have thanked had moved elsewhere. Do people ever do it on social media, do you know?)

  226. He spoke at my university a while ago… he liked courting controversy. One of the things he said was that half the people out there are idiots, and everybody knows it but we’re not supposed to talk about it.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Only half?
  227. Anonymous [AKA "rechargin\' capactitor"] says:

    1987 film on the RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX

  228. @Brutusale
    Lorentz...a lepidopterist, no?

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he's more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?

    “Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?”

    His was clearly a really top grade intellect; his achievements are very impressive. But I’ve used only little bits of his work in maths so I can’t pretend to be well equipped to judge. The prize, remember, is for physics, not maths.

    If you mean did lesser men receive Nobels, then of course. They hand them out every year, remorselessly, so the standards are bound to vary. Plus, they are awarded by mere humans, after all.

    Was he “screwed”: you’d have to ask physicists. I wonder a little whether his very versatility handicapped him; not every physicist is going to smile on a man who devoted time to Engineering or Philosophy. Perhaps not every physicist would smile on a man who spent so much time on maths.

    Competition in his time was fierce, with the huge leaps in experimental physics. Thus 1901 Roentgen, 1902 Lorentz and Zeeman, 1903 The Curies and Becquerel, 1904 Lord Rayleigh, 1905 von Lenard, 1906 J J Thomson, 1907 Michelson, 1908 Lippmann, 1909 Marconi and Braun, 1910 van der Waals, 1911 Wien.

    Which of those would you kick aside in favour of Poincare, in light of the evidence available at the time?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Correction: they didn't award the Prize every year; the years without, though, were mainly during the two World Wars. They therefore did award the Prize in almost every peacetime year.

    P.S. I've known only one Nobel physicist. Was he as clever as Poincare? He'd have laughed at the idea. But it's a Physics Prize, not a reward for intellectual brilliance.
  229. @dearieme
    "Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?"

    His was clearly a really top grade intellect; his achievements are very impressive. But I've used only little bits of his work in maths so I can't pretend to be well equipped to judge. The prize, remember, is for physics, not maths.

    If you mean did lesser men receive Nobels, then of course. They hand them out every year, remorselessly, so the standards are bound to vary. Plus, they are awarded by mere humans, after all.

    Was he "screwed": you'd have to ask physicists. I wonder a little whether his very versatility handicapped him; not every physicist is going to smile on a man who devoted time to Engineering or Philosophy. Perhaps not every physicist would smile on a man who spent so much time on maths.

    Competition in his time was fierce, with the huge leaps in experimental physics. Thus 1901 Roentgen, 1902 Lorentz and Zeeman, 1903 The Curies and Becquerel, 1904 Lord Rayleigh, 1905 von Lenard, 1906 J J Thomson, 1907 Michelson, 1908 Lippmann, 1909 Marconi and Braun, 1910 van der Waals, 1911 Wien.

    Which of those would you kick aside in favour of Poincare, in light of the evidence available at the time?

    Correction: they didn’t award the Prize every year; the years without, though, were mainly during the two World Wars. They therefore did award the Prize in almost every peacetime year.

    P.S. I’ve known only one Nobel physicist. Was he as clever as Poincare? He’d have laughed at the idea. But it’s a Physics Prize, not a reward for intellectual brilliance.

  230. @Pat the Rat
    The strange thing is that very smart people often make very poor parents. All their obsessing over this and that gives little time for children, if they have any at all.

    A society with many very smart people would probably have many emotionally stunted and self obsessed loners as children and have trouble reproducing itself.

    That has probably already happened in the west where the birthrate of aristocrats and technocrats has been reduced for centuries. This is to some degree anecdotal, although I have read that the birth rate of wealthy Anglicans was far below Catholics.

    In fact I have also read that Eugenics was not and never really was about raising intelligence or purifying the race, etc etc etc, (mouth open and gagging)....

    ...but about destroying the fecundity of the lower classes by attacking their offspring as sub human and reinforcing social and political control over them by the wealthy.

    Unfortunately for the super intelligent Hitler with his average intelligence destroyed Eugenics as an idea in the west. Never mind say the super intelligent we can destroy the family with the sexual revolution and abortion, I prefer sexual decadence to uniforms and medals anyway.

    I read your comment twice, just to be sure. So many assertions, so little evidence. I feel you should go back to the HuffPo or Salon where such shit is enthusiastically upvoted. In these parts it don’t work

    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    I kind of like this site, probably because it is so hard to define it's politics, and it talks about some mildly taboo subjects as well.

    It seems to be full of some pretty decent bloggers, some on the left and some on the right, some religious some non religious, hard to pigeon hole, which is great.

    Then there are the libertarian eugenicist types who think they are God because they run a business or have a science degree, they give the impression they have left religion behind and would happily neuter half the population thinking this would lead to utopia. It does not seem enough for them that we kill millions of unborn babies many from the poor. They give the impression they would like to stop those people reproducing that they define as less worthy or intelligent than themselves.

    Dr Kill I just think these attitudes could lead to very evil outcomes as it has in the past.

  231. Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?

    Poincare died in 1912 and you can’t get a Nobel posthumously. Einstein didn’t get the prize until 1921 and even then the only thing they specifically cited was his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Relativity was still quite controversial.

    Poincare was one of the half-mathematician, half-engineer Europeans like Carnot and Weibull. That kind of overlap is almost totally extinct these days.

  232. @dearieme
    It's spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.

    But he's still the second greatest mathematical physicist ever. You can't really deny him that status just because, for example, much of the wit and wisdom attributed to him is bogus, or because he was selfish to the point of dishonesty about giving due credit to others. Or even because he may have bumped off his daughter. The two relativities guarantee him that status, and will do so even when they are eventually replaced by other theories. The fact that his Nobel was not for Special Relativity may just be some doleful Swedish joke.

    It’s spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.

    Off-hand, I would say that Alan Turing is probably Einstein’s greatest rival in the 20th century celebrity scientist sweepstakes. In Turing’s case, he gets more hype than he deserves because (i) he was Gay, (ii) the British have turned Bletchley Park into a kind of national cult, and (iii) he killed himself.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Or there's Feynman, because he wrote well and played the bongos. Or, indeed, Mrs Einstein, Rosy Franklin, and any other potential feminist hard luck story.

    Or, whisper who dare, Crick and Watson, because (i) Watson wrote a rattling good kiss-and-tell about it all, and (ii) the double helix and its base pairs form an object that's beautiful - both intellectually and aesthetically - with a working principle that the layman genuinely can grasp, and (iii) it carries the promise, however vague, or inaccurate, or exaggerated, of the cure for all diseases.
    , @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that Claude Shannon is highly comparable to Alan Turing in contributions, but the American has almost zero name recognition.
  233. @Brutusale
    Lorentz...a lepidopterist, no?

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he's more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he’s more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.

    Fame is an interesting thing. Every semester, I ask my students (it’s a lit class) if any of them have heard of Josiah Willard Gibbs. I’ve never received a positive response.On the other hand, they all know who Alan Turing was……

  234. @syonredux

    It’s spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.
     
    Off-hand, I would say that Alan Turing is probably Einstein's greatest rival in the 20th century celebrity scientist sweepstakes. In Turing's case, he gets more hype than he deserves because (i) he was Gay, (ii) the British have turned Bletchley Park into a kind of national cult, and (iii) he killed himself.

    Or there’s Feynman, because he wrote well and played the bongos. Or, indeed, Mrs Einstein, Rosy Franklin, and any other potential feminist hard luck story.

    Or, whisper who dare, Crick and Watson, because (i) Watson wrote a rattling good kiss-and-tell about it all, and (ii) the double helix and its base pairs form an object that’s beautiful – both intellectually and aesthetically – with a working principle that the layman genuinely can grasp, and (iii) it carries the promise, however vague, or inaccurate, or exaggerated, of the cure for all diseases.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Or there’s Feynman, because he wrote well and played the bongos.
     
    Not a contender. His film tanked, and he doesn't have anyone (Gays, Blacks, etc) trying to big him up. Identity is everything these days.

    Or, indeed, Mrs Einstein, Rosy Franklin, and any other potential feminist hard luck story.
     
    As I've noted upthread, Rosalind Franklin does have the feminist martyr thing going for her. Let's see how that Nicole Kidman biopic does (assuming that it gets off the ground..)

    Or, whisper who dare, Crick and Watson, because (i) Watson wrote a rattling good kiss-and-tell about it all, and (ii) the double helix and its base pairs form an object that’s beautiful – both intellectually and aesthetically – with a working principle that the layman genuinely can grasp, and (iii) it carries the promise, however vague, or inaccurate, or exaggerated, of the cure for all diseases.
     
    Sniffing the wind a bit tells me that Watson and Crick will now be remembered as the villains in the Rosalind Franklin Story. Meanwhile, Maurice Wilkins seems to have been forgotten by everybody....


    No, I think that the only other real contender is Stephen Hawking. He's got the disability thing boosting him. Plus, Redmayne's Hawking won an Oscar, beating out Cumberbatch's Turing.
  235. @Hibernian
    I am (kind of) old, and American. I learned about Fitzgerald and Lorentz in the early 70s in high school physics.

    Well, you have just burst my bubble. I am about your vintage and am now apparently (kind of) old. Funny, I don’t feel old except when random aches interfere with getting out of bed in the morning. When that slides to the afternoon, I will have arrived.
    In other news, here is a book recommendation for all and sundry: Age of Fracture, by Daniel T. Rodgers.

  236. @Jim
    The actual history of how scientific theories develop is usually a lot more complicated than the "great man" popular accounts. I believe that Einstein did say at one time that he had not read and was not familiar with Poincare's writing on the relativity and simultaneity.

    Yes, and Freud always claimed that he never read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, although their writings absolutely prefigure his own.

    The only way in which Freud is telling the truth — not to pile on him — is to acknowledge that ideas that are promoted by someone have a tendency to take a life of their own, and while Freud may not have read them, he probably knew, talked to, and read, people who had.

    The same goes for Einstein, or the famous Newton-Einstein priority argument. A lot of people at the same time were trying to address the same problems. Some come in first and get all the glory. Some come up with a better arrangement and are used, without as much glory (compare Newton/Leibniz, or Copernicus/Kepler). And most of the contributors never get any recognition at all.

  237. @ScarletNumber
    Come on now, you are being obtuse.

    Ever use “obtuse” in a conversation with a black person??? What was their reaction?? Were you understood?? And if you were, did they beat you to a bloody pulp??

  238. @frizzled
    But magic is real. That's something that is becoming increasingly clear.

    Faith based healing works, because placebos work. Quackery works. When it comes to human beings, feelz do equal reals. The zodiac and Friday 13 and the rest have measurable, statistically significant effects on human health.

    STEM types, concrete based thinkers with objectivity fetishes, don't like to hear this, but human beings are not the same as other kinds of objects you can study. Because humans are social animals that care deeply about how other humans behave, and studying humans changes their behavior. All of the assumptions about objectivity are suspect. As Steve says himself, psychology isn't science, it's marketing research. Human behavior isn't some kind of fixed variable you can produce eternal verities about.

    Here's something else: describing a disease can create the disease. Ever wonder why there are so many transgenders these days?

    This blog has a definite bias towards High IQ STEM value, as such it is bound to deprecate any irrational elements in life. Having said that there is quite a bit of life that is bound by habit and routine, including examined beliefs, and including all sort is interactions between humans, their environments, and whatever that thing we call “self” which probably in many cases have not and never will yield to rational explanation.

    So the short answer is that there are a whole lot of things we don’t understand, either in terms of manifestation and causation, and I guess we can call it “magic” or anything else. But the whole point of our culture is to recognize that, while yes, there are a lot of things we call “magic”, and while recognition of these things may in fact lead to a happier life and end of life, that doesn’t mean we have to fetishize them and not try to understand them.

    So I agree that magic is real and that some part of human life is bound to be irrational. But the things that fall under those headings are likely to change from time to time.

  239. @dearieme
    Or there's Feynman, because he wrote well and played the bongos. Or, indeed, Mrs Einstein, Rosy Franklin, and any other potential feminist hard luck story.

    Or, whisper who dare, Crick and Watson, because (i) Watson wrote a rattling good kiss-and-tell about it all, and (ii) the double helix and its base pairs form an object that's beautiful - both intellectually and aesthetically - with a working principle that the layman genuinely can grasp, and (iii) it carries the promise, however vague, or inaccurate, or exaggerated, of the cure for all diseases.

    Or there’s Feynman, because he wrote well and played the bongos.

    Not a contender. His film tanked, and he doesn’t have anyone (Gays, Blacks, etc) trying to big him up. Identity is everything these days.

    Or, indeed, Mrs Einstein, Rosy Franklin, and any other potential feminist hard luck story.

    As I’ve noted upthread, Rosalind Franklin does have the feminist martyr thing going for her. Let’s see how that Nicole Kidman biopic does (assuming that it gets off the ground..)

    Or, whisper who dare, Crick and Watson, because (i) Watson wrote a rattling good kiss-and-tell about it all, and (ii) the double helix and its base pairs form an object that’s beautiful – both intellectually and aesthetically – with a working principle that the layman genuinely can grasp, and (iii) it carries the promise, however vague, or inaccurate, or exaggerated, of the cure for all diseases.

    Sniffing the wind a bit tells me that Watson and Crick will now be remembered as the villains in the Rosalind Franklin Story. Meanwhile, Maurice Wilkins seems to have been forgotten by everybody….

    No, I think that the only other real contender is Stephen Hawking. He’s got the disability thing boosting him. Plus, Redmayne’s Hawking won an Oscar, beating out Cumberbatch’s Turing.

  240. @iffen
    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.

    I don't think that you can know that for sure.

    Many smart, educated people buy into the idea that we proles should be shielded from "The Truth."

    see Razib’s recent article on this

    • Replies: @iffen
    #266 was for you
  241. @Hibernian
    It is a religious view. It is not a mere "re-labeling" of anything. It involves belief that God created the world; it doesn't ask us to believe He created it in seven days.

    What I remember from the case is that it was shown convincingly that a lot of Discovery Institute material was nothing more than rebranding of old school creationism. Rebranding as in “replace creator with intelligent designer in this text”. That basic and dumb. Anti-evolutionists received a well deserved beating in that case, sorry.

    • Replies: @larry lurker

    Rebranding as in “replace creator with intelligent designer in this text”.
     
    Yep.

    The missing link between creationism and intelligent design: "cdesign proponentsists"
  242. @AnotherDad

    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.
     
    Not quite by my definition. Skimmed his wiki, Coyne seems to be a standard issue leftist, secular Jew. AFAIK he's doing standard issue work for his team.

    Jeb Bush is a cuck.

    LOL, i had no idea that he was jewish but i’m of course not surprised.
    I suppose that stephen j. “fraud” gould is one of his heroes.

  243. @TheJester
    Incarceration and fines for so-called "hate speech" directed at entitled and protected groups (I can't say minorities because women are entitled and protected) is already de rigueur in Germany, France, Britain, and Canada. "Hate speech" includes saying something insensitive about a protected group, such as pointing out the average IQ of Blacks or the finer points of the Islamic religion.

    We can thank God that we have the First Amendment to our Constitution ... or, we would be in a similar legal fix. But, as James Watson repeatedly rediscovers, social and professional banishment is also a price to pay, even in the United States, as the SJWs sweep our universities, schools, professional organizations, corporations, and government agencies.

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.

    We miss you Peter ...!

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.

    Really? I didn’t hear about this. Do you have a link.

  244. @Svigor

    After all while there are strong hints there is still no proof that there are racial IQ differences.
     
    Wrong. The racial gaps in IQ are established science, so much so that even shrinks have acknowledged it collectively, in a letter to the NYT. Only unwashed rubes and media airheads don't know this.

    so much so that even shrinks have acknowledged it collectively, in a letter to the NYT. Only unwashed rubes and media airheads don’t know this.

    Are you talking about the publication Mainstream Science on Intelligence?

  245. @dr kill
    I read your comment twice, just to be sure. So many assertions, so little evidence. I feel you should go back to the HuffPo or Salon where such shit is enthusiastically upvoted. In these parts it don't work

    I kind of like this site, probably because it is so hard to define it’s politics, and it talks about some mildly taboo subjects as well.

    It seems to be full of some pretty decent bloggers, some on the left and some on the right, some religious some non religious, hard to pigeon hole, which is great.

    Then there are the libertarian eugenicist types who think they are God because they run a business or have a science degree, they give the impression they have left religion behind and would happily neuter half the population thinking this would lead to utopia. It does not seem enough for them that we kill millions of unborn babies many from the poor. They give the impression they would like to stop those people reproducing that they define as less worthy or intelligent than themselves.

    Dr Kill I just think these attitudes could lead to very evil outcomes as it has in the past.

  246. Slightly OT:

    A time-lapse video of bacterial evolution as it happens.

  247. @Brutusale
    Lorentz...a lepidopterist, no?

    Seriously, anyone who attended a decent school has heard of Lorentz. A Nobel does that for you. Poincare I only heard of from some general reading on chaos theory; I imagine he's more known to math and physics guys than the ruck of humanity.

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?

    Math/physics guys in iSteveland: did Poincare get screwed in the Nobel sweepstakes?

    I think that would be a valid question had it happened today, but for three reasons the questions is a bit moot for the world of physics and Nobel prizes in the early 20th century.

    The first is that the Nobel prizes hadn’t yet acquired the cachet they have today. In fact, by happy coincidence, the Nobel prizes were instituted precisely at the start of the golden age of physics. Every year, right from the start, they were able to award the prize to someone who had accomplished something of great, historical, importance. Back then, it was the awardees who helped the Nobel acquire its reputation, not the other way around.

    There were giants in those days, and giving out the first twenty or thirty prizes in physics and chemistry to them helped secure the later reputation of the Nobels as a sort of super-prize and certification of giant intellect. For these men (and one woman-Marie Curie) the Nobel was a nice-to-have medal and a big chunk of money, but their reputations were secure without the additional stamp of the prize.

    The second is that Poincare was a mathematician, first and foremost, in the first rank of the great 19th and early 20th century mathematicians such as David Hilbert, Georg Cantor and others. As it happened, problems in physics, such as relativity, were topics to which he just happened to lend his considerable mind to, and to which he happened to make huge contributions. It would have bothered him little to have not received the recognition of a relatively new prize in physics for his work on relativity.

    The third reason is simple. Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize until 1921, 9 years after Poincare died. And he did not get it for his work on relativity, nor did anyone else get a prize for work on that area of physics in those decades.

  248. Freedom FROM speech instead of freedom of speech

  249. @Desiderius

    Did the Roman Republic ever un-person its retired generals and civic leaders and thinkers because they were rude to some barbarians?
     
    Justinian treated Belisarius pretty badly (cf. Gibbon), since his victories in battle over the barbarians threatened to show Justinian up, at least in his (and his wife's) mind. That's a sort of rudeness, I guess.

    Similar dynamic at work here, I suspect. Actual achievement doesn't go over real well with those incapable of producing it themselves.

    You’re about 500 years off.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Ah, I missed Republic. Good catch. Can't get anything past Uncle Joe.

    Are you familiar with this dynamic occurring under the Republic?
  250. @ogunsiron
    What I remember from the case is that it was shown convincingly that a lot of Discovery Institute material was nothing more than rebranding of old school creationism. Rebranding as in "replace creator with intelligent designer in this text". That basic and dumb. Anti-evolutionists received a well deserved beating in that case, sorry.

    Rebranding as in “replace creator with intelligent designer in this text”.

    Yep.

    The missing link between creationism and intelligent design: “cdesign proponentsists”

  251. @syonredux

    It’s spot on, I think, to call him the First Celebrity Scientist. He gets more hype than deserved because (i) he lived in the age of celebrity, and (ii) he went to live in the US, the land of celebrity, and (iii) his work led eventually to The Bomb.
     
    Off-hand, I would say that Alan Turing is probably Einstein's greatest rival in the 20th century celebrity scientist sweepstakes. In Turing's case, he gets more hype than he deserves because (i) he was Gay, (ii) the British have turned Bletchley Park into a kind of national cult, and (iii) he killed himself.

    My vague impression is that Claude Shannon is highly comparable to Alan Turing in contributions, but the American has almost zero name recognition.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    My vague impression is that Claude Shannon is highly comparable to Alan Turing in contributions, but the American has almost zero name recognition.
     
    Indeed. When Shannon got a GOOGLE DOODLE on his birthday, a lot of people told me that they had absolutely no idea who he was.But that's what happens when you don't have identitarian activists working on your behalf:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8rVJZ-VDKQ
  252. @Anonymous
    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies … not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.


    Totally false. You don't know what you're talking about.

    “Totally false. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Which investment banks have you worked for, troll?

  253. @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "That little bathmat patch of green you call a lawn ? is going to shrivel up and die and in the end look just like your bald head ."
    You killed Steves rabbit, didn't you!

    Yes, yes I did and this is how I cooked him :

    Coleman’s mustard powder BTW .

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    You ate The Steve's bunny?

    Be ye cast out from among the faithful, even unto the last days, when the stars shall be blown about the sky, like the sparks blown out of a smithy.
  254. @The Alarmist

    "Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don’t have."
     
    Actually, that is why most top investment bankers are recruited from the Ivies ... not because they are bright, but because they are likely to be connected to the Muppets who head up their natural client base.

    I’d say that’s one reason, but more important is that they were smart enough to be admitted.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    No, having worked through 5 investment banks as a non-Ivy who was hired for quant skills, I can reassure you that most of the so-called rain-makers were hired for who they might know. If I hadn't had the maths and programming and modelling skills, I would never have been given the time of day.

    It was assumed they were bright because they were from the Ivies, but most of the MDs in Sales and Trading did not kid themselves that they were doing anything more than hoping to cash in on somebody's potential to connect to someone who would come across with the dough. But I heard on more than one occasion that there was no interest in recruiting from the second tier schools because those people had a limited book of viable prospects.

    , @artichoke
    Similar to The Alarmist's answer ... the Ivy grads they're looking for are not the nerds admitted with 800/800/800 SATs, but the legacy admits.

    Why do B students and C students do better than A students in later life? Because the thing that got them admitted to school without strong academic skills, will get them "admitted" to many more things in life later. Whereas the brilliant student will just find ways to sell his skill at best.

    That's what happens in a trading firm. A guy I know was just a programmer, had enough connections to get hired for that. But then he was able to display some connections back in Russia. He was plucked out from among the programmers and made head of a new trading desk. But that's very rare. Usually the programmers just program, quants just do that, etc.
  255. @Johnny Smoggins
    'And medical students as a class are not brighter than any other class of post-graduate students in STEM."

    As the field of medicine has become increasingly feminized it has been dumbed down and is now more emotion, less scientific based. This is why there's been such a rise in alternative medicine, faith based healing and other quackery that appeals to women. As Heartiste once said, the idea of "magic" and hidden knowledge i.e. the zodiac, is "chick crack"

    A little more holistic medicine and a little less better living through chemistry would be a feature, not a bug. IMHO women physicians are just as drug oriented as the men.

  256. @biz

    People who conflate ID with young earth creationism are transparently motivated by fear and hatred of all religion.
     
    Incorrect. Both creationism and ID are equally non-scientific, because they posit a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena.

    ID reconciles faith with reason. I realize that’s more than a little too Jesuitical for a lot of people.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Theoretically it could. It's just that in practice it hasn't exactly distinguished itself. Then again, it's a tough crowd.
  257. @Laurel
    He spoke at my university a while ago... he liked courting controversy. One of the things he said was that half the people out there are idiots, and everybody knows it but we're not supposed to talk about it.

    Only half?

  258. @athEIst
    You're about 500 years off.

    Ah, I missed Republic. Good catch. Can’t get anything past Uncle Joe.

    Are you familiar with this dynamic occurring under the Republic?

  259. @Hibernian
    ID reconciles faith with reason. I realize that's more than a little too Jesuitical for a lot of people.

    Theoretically it could. It’s just that in practice it hasn’t exactly distinguished itself. Then again, it’s a tough crowd.

  260. @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that Claude Shannon is highly comparable to Alan Turing in contributions, but the American has almost zero name recognition.

    My vague impression is that Claude Shannon is highly comparable to Alan Turing in contributions, but the American has almost zero name recognition.

    Indeed. When Shannon got a GOOGLE DOODLE on his birthday, a lot of people told me that they had absolutely no idea who he was.But that’s what happens when you don’t have identitarian activists working on your behalf:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That's not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.
  261. @frizzled
    But magic is real. That's something that is becoming increasingly clear.

    Faith based healing works, because placebos work. Quackery works. When it comes to human beings, feelz do equal reals. The zodiac and Friday 13 and the rest have measurable, statistically significant effects on human health.

    STEM types, concrete based thinkers with objectivity fetishes, don't like to hear this, but human beings are not the same as other kinds of objects you can study. Because humans are social animals that care deeply about how other humans behave, and studying humans changes their behavior. All of the assumptions about objectivity are suspect. As Steve says himself, psychology isn't science, it's marketing research. Human behavior isn't some kind of fixed variable you can produce eternal verities about.

    Here's something else: describing a disease can create the disease. Ever wonder why there are so many transgenders these days?

    Hah, this is true. I know a middle aged woman who has been eating peanuts all her life, but who in recent years has got it into her head that she’s allergic to peanuts and – this is the interesting part- now becomes genuinely physically ill when she eats a peanut.

  262. @Jim Don Bob
    Speaking the truth. Name me one person who is optimistic about Africa.
  263. @iffen
    Exactly. Coyne’s a cuck.

    I don't think that you can know that for sure.

    Many smart, educated people buy into the idea that we proles should be shielded from "The Truth."

    It’s really tricky. You need someone like Trump at one level but someone else at the next level. I am not sure that many leaders are produced who can communicate and influence at different levels.

  264. @ogunsiron
    see Razib's recent article on this

    #266 was for you

  265. @donut
    Yes, yes I did and this is how I cooked him :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmgYaWsh7qE

    Coleman's mustard powder BTW .

    You ate The Steve’s bunny?

    Be ye cast out from among the faithful, even unto the last days, when the stars shall be blown about the sky, like the sparks blown out of a smithy.

  266. @Hibernian
    I'd say that's one reason, but more important is that they were smart enough to be admitted.

    No, having worked through 5 investment banks as a non-Ivy who was hired for quant skills, I can reassure you that most of the so-called rain-makers were hired for who they might know. If I hadn’t had the maths and programming and modelling skills, I would never have been given the time of day.

    It was assumed they were bright because they were from the Ivies, but most of the MDs in Sales and Trading did not kid themselves that they were doing anything more than hoping to cash in on somebody’s potential to connect to someone who would come across with the dough. But I heard on more than one occasion that there was no interest in recruiting from the second tier schools because those people had a limited book of viable prospects.

  267. @syonredux

    My vague impression is that Claude Shannon is highly comparable to Alan Turing in contributions, but the American has almost zero name recognition.
     
    Indeed. When Shannon got a GOOGLE DOODLE on his birthday, a lot of people told me that they had absolutely no idea who he was.But that's what happens when you don't have identitarian activists working on your behalf:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8rVJZ-VDKQ

    That’s not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    That’s not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.
     
    Sure. My objections to the Turing Cult simply have to do with the fact that there is no scientific reason for putting Turing over Shannon. The Turing Cult is more about who Turing was (Gay) than what he accomplished.
    , @The most deplorable one
    I don't think so.

    Shannon's paper on Information Theory was foundational:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
  268. @Steve Sailer
    That's not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.

    That’s not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.

    Sure. My objections to the Turing Cult simply have to do with the fact that there is no scientific reason for putting Turing over Shannon. The Turing Cult is more about who Turing was (Gay) than what he accomplished.

    • Replies: @res

    The Turing Cult is more about who Turing was (Gay) than what he accomplished.
     
    The appeal of the WWII Engima story certainly helped as well. And Turing's suicide also made a difference.

    Here are ngrams for both of them: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Alan+Turing%2CClaude+Shannon&year_start=1940&year_end=2016&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CAlan%20Turing%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CClaude%20Shannon%3B%2Cc0
    Turing only became more common in 1980 (near parity in 1979 and 2x in 1980). Since the Enigma work was declassified in the mid-1970s that seems like the primary driver.
    Hodges's book was published in 1983 so it looks like he more followed the popularity than drove it (which surprised me). Any idea of what before Hodges brought Turing to public consciousness?
  269. @Dr. X

    There is a lot of potential fun in the use of intellectual tools developed for left purposes, for non-left purposes.
     
    Well, I have to say, I've tried exactly that mysef, and let me assure you that the outcome wasn't much fun at all.

    Don’t know if you’re still checking this thread but I might have answered my own question: I found something through an old Sailer link on Vdare, to an old Sam Francis link, to an old Nicholas Wade link, to this 2002 Science article: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381

  270. @Hibernian
    I'd say that's one reason, but more important is that they were smart enough to be admitted.

    Similar to The Alarmist’s answer … the Ivy grads they’re looking for are not the nerds admitted with 800/800/800 SATs, but the legacy admits.

    Why do B students and C students do better than A students in later life? Because the thing that got them admitted to school without strong academic skills, will get them “admitted” to many more things in life later. Whereas the brilliant student will just find ways to sell his skill at best.

    That’s what happens in a trading firm. A guy I know was just a programmer, had enough connections to get hired for that. But then he was able to display some connections back in Russia. He was plucked out from among the programmers and made head of a new trading desk. But that’s very rare. Usually the programmers just program, quants just do that, etc.

  271. @Joe Schmoe

    the Ivies routinely graduate morons like Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Bush or Hillary, it’s really hard to consider them anything but glorified diploma mills for the elite.
     
    Actually, it is a place where the elite can meet and marry the very smart people who also attend and naturally want to marry an elite person with the connections they don't have. It is a way for elites to maintain real competitive fitness. They get to meet and marry the smartest people.

    see: “Princeton mom”. Who advised young Princeton ladies to get to know those Princeton guys and maybe marry them, because they’re better than the men they would tend to meet outside Princeton.

    I married someone from my university. My parents married at university. I think it’s good advice and an easy place to do the social / dating thing.

  272. @syonredux

    That’s not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.
     
    Sure. My objections to the Turing Cult simply have to do with the fact that there is no scientific reason for putting Turing over Shannon. The Turing Cult is more about who Turing was (Gay) than what he accomplished.

    The Turing Cult is more about who Turing was (Gay) than what he accomplished.

    The appeal of the WWII Engima story certainly helped as well. And Turing’s suicide also made a difference.

    Here are ngrams for both of them: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Alan+Turing%2CClaude+Shannon&year_start=1940&year_end=2016&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CAlan%20Turing%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CClaude%20Shannon%3B%2Cc0
    Turing only became more common in 1980 (near parity in 1979 and 2x in 1980). Since the Enigma work was declassified in the mid-1970s that seems like the primary driver.
    Hodges’s book was published in 1983 so it looks like he more followed the popularity than drove it (which surprised me). Any idea of what before Hodges brought Turing to public consciousness?

  273. @Steve Sailer
    That's not to put down Turing, just that Turing and Shannon seem really comparable in accomplishment.

    I don’t think so.

    Shannon’s paper on Information Theory was foundational:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

  274. @TheJester
    Incarceration and fines for so-called "hate speech" directed at entitled and protected groups (I can't say minorities because women are entitled and protected) is already de rigueur in Germany, France, Britain, and Canada. "Hate speech" includes saying something insensitive about a protected group, such as pointing out the average IQ of Blacks or the finer points of the Islamic religion.

    We can thank God that we have the First Amendment to our Constitution ... or, we would be in a similar legal fix. But, as James Watson repeatedly rediscovers, social and professional banishment is also a price to pay, even in the United States, as the SJWs sweep our universities, schools, professional organizations, corporations, and government agencies.

    Peter Frost, who used to post very insightful articles in the Unz Review, ceased participating this year because the Canadian Human Right Commission (guilty until proven innocent) was hot on his heels. Peter posited scientific hypotheses about human social behavior and then gathered statistical and other objective data to prove his points.

    We miss you Peter ...!

    This is great and speaks for all of the Cass Sunsteins of the world who yearn for a weaponized SJW version of the First Amendment.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2