
James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned to Him - analogj
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/james-watson-s-nobel-prize-sold-at-auction-will-be-returned-to-him-1.2866994
======
Gatsky
This is quite depressing.

There isn't anything special about Watson. Like all scientific discoveries, he
was in the right place at the right time, and depending on how you look at it
was sufficiently ruthless/ambitious to claim his place in history. But so
what? If not him, someone else would have worked it out, just like the people
that almost discovered calculus or the Higgs boson. If you want to honour
science, then give 5 million dollars to someone who is actually still
interested in doing research. He's had his day, and has received all the
accolades he deserves, if not more.

------
metal13
I thought he sold it because he wanted money and art.

"Mr Watson told the Financial Times he had become an “unperson” after he “was
outed as believing in IQ” in 2007 and said he would like to use money from the
sale to buy a David Hockney painting."

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-
Watso...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-
selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html)

~~~
huxley
For anyone who isn't familiar with the backstory, Watson didn't become an
unperson for believing in IQ, he claimed in an interview with the Sunday Times
Magazine that testing proved that black Africans aren’t as smart as white
people, then followed it up with the sentiment that ideally one should think
that all people are equal, but "people who have to deal with black employees
find this not true."

[http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1673952,0...](http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1673952,00.html)

[http://www.wired.com/2007/10/more-on-
james-b/](http://www.wired.com/2007/10/more-on-james-b/)

~~~
waps
You forgot the detail which massively complicates this : James Watson' claim
about the test scores is true [1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence)

Note the first paragraph in the Wikipedia article : "The connection between
race and intelligence has been ... It is still not resolved what relation, if
any, there is between group differences in IQ and race."

Currently we have about 104 years of data, which shows, to put it mildly, a
clear pattern of racial differences in intelligence (and pretty much every
other metric. Size. Weight. Speed. Color. Body temperature...). Worse, they
also show a clear difference in intelligence between different ideological
groups (e.g. religion) (again, and they also show a large difference in other
metrics).

To some extent Watson, in his first claim, has a point that we seem to be
unwilling to make. There is a clear conclusion to be drawn here :

Different races are different. In pretty much any metric you can come up with.

Furthermore, if you look at the effect of average differences in a certain
metric to examples in individuals, you get an even more politically incorrect
result, based on pure math. If you take 2 groups, who differ by x percentage
points in "blueness". Then if you take a random individual from group 1, and a
random one from group 2, what are the chances that the first individual is
more blue ?

x = 1% => p =~ 76%

x = 2% => p =~ 92%

x = 3% => p =~ 98%

So this means that if blue humans are 1% taller than green humans, then if you
meet a blue and a green human on the street, the chance is about 76% that the
blue human will win (be taller) than the green.

(Only intelligence scores vary more than 1 standard deviation. The largest
difference is between 2.5 and 3 standard deviations (and does not involve
either a white ethnic or a black ethnic group))

~~~
bainsfather
Could the downvoters give a response? - I presume you are downvoting because
you disagree with wasps - I'd like to see your argument. Thanks.

~~~
pherocity_
I didn't down vote, but the inherent bias in the test is a possible reason but
even with that factored out, the relevance is a more reasonable objection.
We're not talking the difference in between being able to grock quantum
physics or not, we're talking a few questions on the exam. And IQ happens to
be a pretty sweet bell curve, so if you're an average white guy, then you're
still dumber than 49% of the black guys out there, and dumber than 54% of
Chinese guys.

So we should give up on Africa because the average black guy didn't answer the
2 train question correctly? Should we also give up on Europe and North America
because the white guys didn't answer that correctly either?

The use of this stat, were it even possible to be accurate, really only serves
racists. No meaningful outcome could result from the number.

~~~
waps
> And IQ happens to be a pretty sweet bell curve, so if you're an average
> white guy, then you're still dumber than 49% of the black guys out there,
> and dumber than 54% of Chinese guys.

Those numbers are not accurate given the data on the wikipedia page. The first
number is about double the real value, the second needs about 6 percentage
points added to it for it to be accurate.

~~~
pherocity_
I was making the numbers up, because we cannot exclude and accurately asses
racial and other socioeconomic conditions. So the numbers on Wikipedia do not
tell any more truth than me making them up. The point, is that whatever the
numbers are, they're irrelevant as nothing useful can be done with the data.

------
Paul_S
Poetic justice also works in positive ways. It's nice to read something
uplifting once in a while, though finding a Russian oligarch in such a story
feels strange.

~~~
andrewchambers
My guess is a rich Russian won't shy away from issues regarding politically
correctness the same way a rich american would.

~~~
sxcurry
According to BBC News, in the interview with The Sunday Times, Watson said he
was "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 he hoped everyone
was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is
not true."

Sounds more like racism than political correctness.

~~~
trhway
>whereas all the testing says not really."

sounds like his statement is based on facts known to him (and being Nobel
winning scientist he probably has good skills at understanding and analyzing
facts)

>Sounds more like racism

Either you're trying to say what his statement wasn't based on his knowledge
and analysis of facts or you're introducing a concept of "racism rooted in
facts"

I wonder though whether the Watson will accept the medal back from Usmanov's
hands.

~~~
peteretep

        > > whereas all the testing says not really.
        
        > sounds like his statement is based on facts known to him
    

Really? He follows it up by saying "people who have to deal with black
employees" will "know" that it's true.

My understanding is that IQ correlates to socio-economic background, but once
that's adjusted for, all race considerations fall away. If you've got a
credible source that says something else, I'm sure we'd find it interesting.

~~~
throwaway451
> My understanding is that IQ correlates to socio-economic background, but
> once that's adjusted for, all race considerations fall away

Unfortunately, that's not true, but it's a common myth that's repeated. Poor
whites do nearly as well as rich blacks, on average.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_achievement_gap_in_the_U...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_achievement_gap_in_the_United_States#Theories_about_the_origin_of_the_racial_achievement_gap)

We're still searching for something that would correct for racial differences
in testing, but socio-economic background does not correct for it. And even
supposing it did, it doesn't directly refute the premise, because it conflates
cause/effect, which is why sociologists are searching for other explanations
(other than the obvious one, of course, because it goes against our societal
values).

~~~
peteretep

        > Poor whites do nearly as well as rich blacks, on
        > average.
    

Help me out here, I couldn't find that in link you provided, or in fact any
evidence at all that there might be a genetic component to racial differences
in intelligence?

~~~
throwaway451
Someone linked it below.

Do you think Aborigines in Australia have the same IQ as the Japanese? Or
Pygmies? Part of accepting diversity is accepting that diversity is very real.
But we want it both ways.

~~~
Gatsky
Yes, I do. It's biologically implausible that race has a significant impact on
intelligence. If you think that socio-cultural factors don't have a massive
impact on IQ scores, then look at what has happened to the IQ scores of women
in the last century, and not surprisingly, that this varies between countries
[1].

[1] [http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-
minds/201207/men...](http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-
minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight)

~~~
throwaway451
> Yes, I do. It's biologically implausible that race has a significant impact
> on intelligence.

Surely you would agree we're smarter than Gorillas. Given that, how long as
human intelligence been fixed? How long has it not been a selective force in
evolution for humans? Does evolution not apply to the human brain?

~~~
Gatsky
What's your point? Your contention that race influences intelligence isn't
proven, so how does invoking an evolutionary framework help?

Evolution is a great idea, but the evolutionary history of humans is of course
almost entirely speculative. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I think
there is enough trouble explaining why we walk up right or have smaller jaws
than neanderthals let alone explaining how we evolved current levels of
intelligence.

------
noobermin
"Usmanov hailed Watson one of the greatest biologists in the history of
mankind."

Does anyone have a link to a longer statement from Usmanov?

------
baddox
So, sell it again for more charity?

------
frontsideair
I'm very split on this topic. I read this on The Verge[1] and I know they're
pretty left-leaning. But to my experience they rarely lie and they made many
criticisms I find valid. On the other hand, marginalization is another big
problem of our age. Let me elaborate.

First of all, him stealing research from Rosalind Franklin comment is a bit of
a hyperbole. Sure, not asking for her permission before using data and not
crediting her at all are major dick moves, but I'm pretty sure he was a
brilliant scientist. The quotes from his book The Double Helix don't really
help here, they are extremely misogynistic. But The Verge does not mention
that in the epilogue of the same book, he said he was usually wrong about
Franklin and he acknowledges the hardships she endured as a woman in
science.[2] This is just the part about Franklin.

The rest of The Verge article mentions about him being a generally horrible
person and does not even quote the parts about obese people and genetic
screening, so bonus points for them. But one thing we need to consider is that
he is _old_. Really, he is 86. Of course this shouldn't shield him from
criticism, but he was born and lived in a different world than ours. Bad
behavior should be called out and shunned, but there's a fine line between
this and marginalization. We should all be responsible about it.

The last thing I want to add is how everyone thinks if you made one great
achievement you win all the points. This reminds me a lot about what's going
on with Linus Pauling.[3] He did awesome things, yes, but at some point he
stopped being a pioneer in science and bullishly promoted benefits of vitamin
C even though scientific community was mostly united against it. People want
to see them as authority figures even after they age and lose their touch.
This is sad, really. But continuing taking them seriously is usually more harm
than silently ignoring them.

I'm sorry no one takes him seriously anymore. But I understand universities
not considering working with him anymore. I understand press not caring about
what he says anymore. They all have good reasons. But that's where my pity
ends. Him deciding to sell his Nobel medal makes him look like a victim, but
as far as I know he didn't do it because he was poor or anything. He wanted to
buy a painting, which I'm perfectly fine with. And maybe he wanted a little
attention? People get old and sad, which is depressing, but there's not much
we can do about it.

Sorry for the long comment.

[1]: [http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7363969/dna-pioneer-
james-...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7363969/dna-pioneer-james-watson-
nobel-returned-richest-man-in-russia) [2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Use_of_King.27s_Co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Use_of_King.27s_College_results)
[3]: [http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-
vitami...](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-vitamin-myth-
why-we-think-we-need-supplements/277947/?single_page=true)

~~~
dubfan
There does seem to be a movement to purge anyone with unpopular opinions from
the public sphere, regardless of the context in which they developed their
beliefs and how irrelevant their beliefs are to the work for which they earned
fame. That it's now largely coming from the left wing, which suffered great
marginalization during the Red Scare and McCarthyism, is ironic (and
depressing as someone who used to identify as a liberal)

~~~
arrrg
Aha. News to me, really.

That seems more like a popular right-wing conspiracy theory than anything
that’s actually happening.

~~~
sanxiyn
I think the resignation of Brendan Eich actually happened, not a conspiracy.

~~~
arrrg
And? I don’t really see the connection. CEOs are public faces of their
companies. As such, all their publicly expressed opinions are quite relevant,
especially if they are threatening to their employees. End of story, really.

------
FD3SA
A fascinating controversy in all respects. I find it difficult to argue with
the conclusions in this article as an empiricist, but it does provoke some
very troubling considerations about our future as a global species:

[http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-
inconven...](http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-
truth_296.php)

~~~
seekingtruth
Prepare to have this comment flagkilled within the hour by the less
empirically inclined. It happened to me when I posted this same article the
last time a Watson thread appeared here.

~~~
FD3SA
Hence my fascination with the human mind and its inherent demons and nuanced
machinations. The concept of IQ is fascinating, not least because it causes a
fierce ideological firestorm almost instantaneously upon its mentioning.
However, mentioning that athletic ability is genetically determined gets a
heartfelt, "really, ya think??!"

Alas, we are but a bunch of hominids scrambling in the dark in fear of the
world in which we find ourselves. If we get too close to an idea that can burn
us, most of us scurry away back to the comfortable dark.

That is except for a few insane pioneers, who embrace the flames even at the
cost of their own safety...

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
Should have given it to the family of Rosalind Franklin.

------
klenwell
The level of unconscious racism in this thread is amazing. Whenever the
subject of race comes up and someone sites a statistic purporting to
demonstrate "African" or "black" intellectual inferiority, I suggest he
imagine a seismologist who stated, "Black earthquakes are inherently inferior
to white earthquakes."

"I don't get it."

"Exactly. Why the hell would any reputable seismologist care about white or
black earthquakes?"

~~~
seekingtruth
Seriously. I like the example of bears, since it allows us to remain in the
realm of biology. I mean, does any reputable biologist posit meaningful
differences between polar bears & black bears? It's absurd. One bear is black
and the other is white. What else does that possibly tell us about their
behavior or other attributes?

