Co-Discoverer of DNA on Aborting Homosexuals, IQ, and Latin Lovers

I find this out AFTER I marry a German-Irish woman. Dammit.

"You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

You have to admit that makes for a great quote :-)

Wow. Could you see the homosexual community and the anti-abortion community coming together on this one?

No? Neither can I.

Does it note him as a raving loon as well?

Without calling him a raving loon... I'd like to see the results of his studies and why he feels the way he does.

Then I want to call him a raving loon.

He first developed these theories during the physical act of love. Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily he was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence.

It has not recurred, of course. Women sense his power, and they seek the life essence. He does not avoid women, but he does deny them his essence.

Does this have anything to do with the flouridation of our water?

Watson has always been a grade A asshole. However, the book he authored on the sequencing of the DNA structure is a fascinating read. It presents scientific discovery as an all too human project that is influenced by one's hopes, dreams, and desires just as much as one's knowledge, which, I think, gives it an enthralling vitality. (It also presents him as a skirtchasing hater of British cuisine and Rosalin Franklin as a person particularly prone to violent outbursts . . . after he pretty much calls her a fucking moron to her face.)

You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Timothy. How does that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy?

That's great! I knew there must be a logical scientific reason to back up my defense against all those frivolous sexual harassment claims. I was just getting close to all those women because my hot Latin DNA predisposes me to. I can't help it, just like a person can't help breathing. It's all genetics!

"Would ya kill the flowers fer growin'? Would ya kill the little children fer laughin'?

What a Deoxyribonucleic asshole.

What would one expect?
He did win the Nobel Peace Prize.

witchesbrew, is it possible for you to get ANYTHING right? He didn't win the Peace Prize you fucking retard, he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Pull your head out, you fucking idiot...know what? Don't pull your head out. Leave it in until you fucking suffocate and die.

Oh really, like I was referring to James Watson.

That shit read like a comedy skit.

Kinda sucks they cancelled him. The guy helped discover DNA. Anything else he says on the subject, agreeable or not, should be heard. Tell me you wouldn't like to hear him speak.
This is bullshit reactionary censorship.

So, you're insulting Al Gore (without indicating a change in topic) in a thread about Watson? Look out, Algonquin roundtable.

I'd argue that I'd be more interested in hearing him speak after his comments, if only to hear him try to justify them. He does so, to some extent, in the follow-up article. Relevant quote:

I understand what he's saying on a level, but there are certainly better ways he could have articulated his point about varying levels of intelligence based on geographical region than by invoking race. I think most of us would have to agree that intelligence has some basis in genetics. If there were two cities, one full of smart people (city A), one full of dumb people (city B), and people from city A only reproduced with other people from city A, and the same is true of city B, then, yeah, one city is probably going to stay generally smarter, and the other generally dumber.

I think his (huuuge) mistake was in essentially saying that, if city B happened to be full of black people, their general dumb-ness has something to do with their blackness. For all we know, there's a city C, equally full of white and black people, all of roughly the same high level of intelligence, and a city D exclusively full of white people who are way dumber than the black people in city B.

Of course, this is also all assuming that there's a universal way to test for intelligence. Certainly, cultural factors play into how we perceive and test smarts.

Basically, he sounds like an egghead who knows a ton about genetics and not a lot about conveying these ideas to the general public without coming off like a tool. I imagine this isn't that unusual in the scientific community, which is why articulate guys like Carl Sagan are so appreciated by us non-science geeks.

Though I don't have too much to add to the conversation that hasn't been said, I do think that the attempt to measure intelligence is largely futile.

He seems to recognize that one person can be excellent at pattern recognition while another could be fantastic at gaging the emotional reactions of strangers. The problem is that we have (at best) a pretty rudimentary recognition of different types of intelligence available to humans. As a result, we have only one system of measurement that is closely associated with the type of intelligence that allows an individual to succeed in a western scholastic system.

I can see using that to both criticize and support Watson's point, but it's rarely held discussion that's ultimately very important. Solutions to problems are rarely one size fit all.

What DaveB posted seems reasonable on its face, but with remarks about "black employees" and such, his desire to segregate intelligence based on race reminds me of researchers in the late 19th, early 20th Century who attempted to do much the same thing (measuring head sizes, etc) while harboring a more nefarious agenda that ultimately skewed their results.

I'm probably overstating my case, because IQ is correlated with proficiency in a great many things. But, look at your definition...it's hopelessly vague, and that's the problem. I'm not willing to accept that we can measure a person's ability to comprehend all types of information to apply them to all manner of problems with one number, no.

Intelligence is mostly dictated by environment. Even counting epigenetics it is still environmental. Specially with emergence of epigenetics now you must say that the 99.9% difference between any two humans of the same sex is environmental.

Ironytrainwreck.gif

Oh, yeah, the thing about "black employees" is absolutely batshit, as were most of his initial comments. But, given the way his apology was phrased, I still get the impression that he's probably just an egghead whose mouth gets ahead of him rather than a true proponent of eugenics or anything.

Although I notice on his Wikipedia entry that he also once said something to the effect that he thinks it would be great if there were a way to genetically make all girls pretty. Not only would this be considered kind of sexist by most, but it also makes the flawed assumption that beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, but that every beholder has the same taste. It's really not too far removed from what The LD is saying about intelligence - criteria may vary.

Please don't take this as any sort of validation of Watson's comments, but:

Why should intelligence be immune to genetic study? Not just race, but gender, genealogy, diet, and global location? Other aspects of human genetics are studied in depth in regards to these aspects - skin color, height, weight... who is to say the human brain isn't also affected by these things?

Watson stated this with a complete lack of tact, that much is certain. But to deny this research into science because of offended sensibilities is just as restrictive as the refusal of the religious right in discussing evolution in any capacity.

Agreed. I think the tact part is the real problem. He jumped the gun in an alarming and tellingly racist way by assuming that any study in this area would somehow result in science backing up the idea that black people make for lesser employees, Latinos make for insatiable lovers, etc. He's probably doing a disservice to his own research.

I also think it's important, as Ali suggested above, to be very wary of result-skewing in this sort of research. Because of the vagueness inherent in defining and quantifying "intelligence," it might be possible for a study of this sort to be conducted with an eye toward certain results. Watson's slips of the tongue are troublesome, because he seems to have some potentially racist opinions on the matter, pre-research. I don't think this is any reason not to conduct the research, but I think I'd want to see conclusions from scientists other than Watson before buying outright anything he has to say about intelligence and black people or any other group.

excuse my bad grammar

It has nothing to do with sensibility since eenin is right. And you will only find (exceptionally) slight differences that could be skewed with proper teaching etc...

Watson is a dick, he put the pieces together with the DNA helix and he even stole the evidence and the "insight".

And leave the double helix model with Pam in HR, please, Dr. Watson.

From the admittedly little I've read on the topic, I think the jury's still out on whether intelligence is hereditary or not. I can't get past the fact that we inherit so many other traits from our parents. Why would intelligence be an exception? I'm not saying that socialization doesn't play a massive part in how intelligence might develop, but it seems weird to me to say that everyone starts with the exact same raw material, and intelligence is solely informed by how we're taught. If nothing else, genetics would at least play a part in the way each of us happens to learn, subject area interests, etc.

With the emergence of epigenetics, I believe you are wrong. Chemical switching has a much bigger effect on human physiology then the genome. Twins may be more alike on average simply because they shared the same womb at the same time then the fact that they are genetically identical. Beside twins are not always identical even if they have the same genome. Some identical twins have very great differences, like one being autistic and the other one being normal, or one getting cancer and the other not getting it. Nova did a whole episode this week. The simple fact is chemical switching of the genome play a bigger role in who we are then the genome itself. The really scary thing about epigenetics switching is that environmental effect can have effect on generations yet to come. Your smoking or drug use may not only effect you but you children, you grand children, and even maybe your grandchildren's grandchildren.

I was more agreeing with you than not (though, like I said, this isn't something I've really investigated). I was responding to eenin's post that intelligence was mostly determined by environment.

Since there are only 20,000–25,000 human protein-coding genes in the human genome and we are all genetically 99.9% the same. It not that much genetic difference between any of us. What you do not seem to grasp is that if intellect is genetic, then it is also epigenetic. So when and how those genes are expressed or even if they will be expressed play a bigger factor in intellect, then the genes themselves ever will. Since the expression of genes is a chemical process that mean that environment plays a larger role then the genes themselves do in the development of intelligence.

That's what I don't get about the counter-argument. Regardless of how similar all humans essentially are, genes clearly play a part in our physical characteristics (height, body type, hair color, skin color, etc.). Presumably, it's epigenetics that might cause a tall couple to produce a dwarf, but, this sort of thing aside, genetics suggest that the tall couple will have a tall child, correct? Why would this be different in regard to mental characteristics? Genes suggest the way a child's intelligence might develop, environment further informs this, no?

The evidence strongly suggests "intelligence" is hereditary. I tend to think this gets some people really upset because it's not rectifiable by social policies.

True, but this shouldn't be construed to devalue education. There's a big difference between smart/dumb and educated/ignorant. "Intelligence" should not be considered an absolute measure of potential.

Which is to say, there's only a handful of jobs in the world that could only be performed by people who are naturally very bright. Even "brainy" jobs (doctors, lawyers, engineers) could be done by average (or sub-average) folks with the proper training.

Oh, I've never suggested otherwise, which is one reason why I put "intelligence" in quotes. Many social skills (which I lack) or simple perseverance and ambition will get you farther in life than mere smarts.

I'm not a socialist by any means, but I've always been a huge advocate of education, both private and state-sponsored. Children should be in school, and after a point anyone who wants to learn should have access to quality education.

Didn't think you were saying that, nekkerbee, it just seems like a natural progression from discussions of natural born intelligence. Paricularly when the conversation starts with Wilson's tactless comments.

I don't see how public education is even a socialist issue. Even the most pro-privatization capitalist should recognize that for America (or wherever) to even approach being the meritocracy we like to pretend it is, quality education must be available to everyone.

I do not think you understand epigenetics. Genes are the hardware, and Epigenetics switching systems is the software. Epigenetics would say that the parents and their children are tall, because the environment they are living in is conducive to them being tall. All living organisms are plastic in nature. Humans and chimpanzees at most 5% difference and may be less then 2 %. So why are we so different? The difference is mostly in our chemical or Epigenetics switching systems. Also it is this Epigenetics switching systems and not genetic mutation which control evolution. We do not as yet understand how it works, but we do know that it can be altered on the fly by environmental conditions. One day we will be able to turn genes on and off at will, were and when we want them to. The environment dues this haphazardly right now. We know that there are links between famine, and diabetes as an example. If female fetuses are exposed to famine then their daughters, and granddaughters are more likely to have diabetes. If preadolescence boy are exposed to famine their sons and grandson are less likely to have diabetes then average. These are environmental effects and are not genetics. Other examples are some forms of cancer, autism, and many other disorders. Just because you have the genes for something does not mean you will get it. The gene may never be turn on This were environment come in to play. When and were genes are turned on and off are what make you, you.

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v2.../1206774a.html
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?yea...rogram=cancgen