Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/nyregion/james-watsons-nobel-medal-sells-for-record-4-million.html
7 comments
Oh, like they were going to skip over his impolitic views when writing his obituary if had died up to now? Of course they wouldn't, they would have written the exact same thing minus the detail of him selling the medallion. Watson certainly does strike me as cranky, but this editorial is a pile of sanctimonious axe-grinding. I was particularly perplexed to see the author quoting E.O. Wilson to support her position, and then taking Watson to task for praising Nicholas Wade's book - which bears a glowing quote from that same E.O. Wilson on the dust jacket. Perhaps when Wilson dies she can spice up his obituary with some unflattering quote from James Watson.
> But he knows fuck all about history, human evolution, anthropology, sociology, psychology, or any rigorous study of intelligence or race.
This is really terrible journalism, regardless of the truth in it.
This is really terrible journalism, regardless of the truth in it.
Why he is a jerk? it's his rights to decide what to do with that medal. isn't it? Why people are criticizing him is out of my head.
People also call him racist because of his another discovery. I mean let him do whatever he wants to do with that. Will a medal going to carry away whatever he does for the science?
People also call him racist because of his another discovery. I mean let him do whatever he wants to do with that. Will a medal going to carry away whatever he does for the science?
He established his reputation as a jerk independently of selling the medal. Here are some quotes:
> [I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.
He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. We're not just bashing someone for speaking a politically unpopular truth here (I cynically suspect that we would do just that were Watson's position correct, but fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case).
> Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them
> [the] historic curse of the Irish, which is not alcohol, it's not stupidity. But it's ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies
Also, he's selling the medal with the specific intent of thumbing his nose at the scientific community. He would draw much more sympathy if he had fallen on hard times due to misfortune, for instance.
> [I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.
He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. We're not just bashing someone for speaking a politically unpopular truth here (I cynically suspect that we would do just that were Watson's position correct, but fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case).
> Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them
> [the] historic curse of the Irish, which is not alcohol, it's not stupidity. But it's ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies
Also, he's selling the medal with the specific intent of thumbing his nose at the scientific community. He would draw much more sympathy if he had fallen on hard times due to misfortune, for instance.
> He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw.
I would be grateful if you could go into some more detail about this. There have been articles on HN recently that made a strong case for the genetic basis of IQ and for its validity as a measure of intelligence. It's also easy to find data about the average measured IQ in different racial groups. But there are also a variety of arguments that weaken or strengthen the case, from the Flynn effect to studies on twins, adopted children, etc. It seems to me that the issue is muddled, at best. If there is a slam-dunk argument that can finally bury the notion of intelligence differences between races, I'd like to see it articulated.
Disclaimer: I do not belong to the race with the highest supposed IQ, and I have never taken an IQ test myself, so I really have no horse in this race. Also, even if racial differences in intelligence were real, individual differences would still be more important, and it would remain unacceptable to make assumptions about someone's intelligence based on their race.
I would be grateful if you could go into some more detail about this. There have been articles on HN recently that made a strong case for the genetic basis of IQ and for its validity as a measure of intelligence. It's also easy to find data about the average measured IQ in different racial groups. But there are also a variety of arguments that weaken or strengthen the case, from the Flynn effect to studies on twins, adopted children, etc. It seems to me that the issue is muddled, at best. If there is a slam-dunk argument that can finally bury the notion of intelligence differences between races, I'd like to see it articulated.
Disclaimer: I do not belong to the race with the highest supposed IQ, and I have never taken an IQ test myself, so I really have no horse in this race. Also, even if racial differences in intelligence were real, individual differences would still be more important, and it would remain unacceptable to make assumptions about someone's intelligence based on their race.
Without endorsing his other comments, I think his comment on the Irish is entirely reasonable. I'm Irish, BTW. He later clarified these remarks somewhat; it seems his main cone of contention with the Irish person who inspired him to make the original remark was her enthusiastic support for gene patents, which he considered to be lunacy.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions...
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tenses-diffuse-tensions...
Why is he "flat out wrong" about the testing? African intelligence scores are much lower.
why would someone downvote this? I'm simply pointing out facts. For example, see this paper by Wicherts et al [1]: "Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82."
[1]http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
[1]http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
I'm getting downvoted for linking to Wikipedia. Facts don't matter on this topic.
the downvotes are quite amazing. this is just a basic factual matter -- nothing to do with whether watson's broader claims are true -- yet it seems some people are simply incapable of dealing with reality...
The same people who decry creationists as ignorant insist that evolution only works from the neck down.
The guy is racist period.What he says is racist,no matter how talented he is.There is no excuse for what he says ,especially as a scientist.
I'm black.to suggest that my intelligence is linked to the color of my skin is ridiculous.
And never forget that a whole bunch of white-supremacists out there are using his credentials to justify whatever violent ideology they promote,and these people don't just talk,they harass,beat and kill non white people because they consider other "races" as subhumans.Words have consequences.
I'm black.to suggest that my intelligence is linked to the color of my skin is ridiculous.
And never forget that a whole bunch of white-supremacists out there are using his credentials to justify whatever violent ideology they promote,and these people don't just talk,they harass,beat and kill non white people because they consider other "races" as subhumans.Words have consequences.
That something someone says makes you feel bad or is used by others to justify ideas or actions you find loathsome does not make that person or what he said wrong. Your skin color and height are highly heritable attributes and it is by no means an outrageous assertion to state that intelligence is as well. Some estimates for heritability of intelligence are as high as 0.8. [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of...
It's irrelevant whether intelligence is an inheritable trait or not. You can not say 'all Asians are short' nor 'all Africans are black' as they simply aren't all, nor does the precise number or accuracy give you indication about the traits of any single person. Watson is under the blatantly false impression that his statement have statistical merit when they clearly don't. He was simply wrong and should not have spoken about a field clearly outside his expertise.
The interpretation of the adoption research in the article you linked is particularly infuriating as there is only one thing clearly dominating in the results, the upbringing of the child which accounts for a full 10 points, a number that would seem to point to an almost irrelevance of any genetic predisposition let alone one correlated with prehistoric ancestry, those 3 points could come from literally any uncontrolled for other environmental influence.
The interpretation of the adoption research in the article you linked is particularly infuriating as there is only one thing clearly dominating in the results, the upbringing of the child which accounts for a full 10 points, a number that would seem to point to an almost irrelevance of any genetic predisposition let alone one correlated with prehistoric ancestry, those 3 points could come from literally any uncontrolled for other environmental influence.
> You can not say 'all Asians are short' nor 'all Africans are black' as they simply aren't all, nor does the precise number or accuracy give you indication about the traits of any single person. Watson is under the blatantly false impression that his statement have statistical merit when they clearly don't.
This is an intellectually dishonest interpretation of statistics and/or his claims. Saying "all Asians are short" is stupid, but saying "Asians are shorter than Europeans" is not; my interpretation of the statement is that Asians are in average (or even better, in median) shorter than Europeans, not that all Asians are shorter than any European (btw, I don't know if it's true, and I don't particularly care, but it very well could be, and it very well could be the reverse).
About race and intelligence, I don't think it's a controversial claim, at least in the US, that Asians are more intelligent than whites, who are in turn more intelligent than blacks. Now, the reasons for this are varied, and might nothing to do with race, but with history (e.g. Asians are descendants of immigrants who were driven to succeed, while blacks are descendants of slaves, who grew up in poor neighborhoods). Why would you object to the second claim, but not the first one?
This is an intellectually dishonest interpretation of statistics and/or his claims. Saying "all Asians are short" is stupid, but saying "Asians are shorter than Europeans" is not; my interpretation of the statement is that Asians are in average (or even better, in median) shorter than Europeans, not that all Asians are shorter than any European (btw, I don't know if it's true, and I don't particularly care, but it very well could be, and it very well could be the reverse).
About race and intelligence, I don't think it's a controversial claim, at least in the US, that Asians are more intelligent than whites, who are in turn more intelligent than blacks. Now, the reasons for this are varied, and might nothing to do with race, but with history (e.g. Asians are descendants of immigrants who were driven to succeed, while blacks are descendants of slaves, who grew up in poor neighborhoods). Why would you object to the second claim, but not the first one?
I would object to both claims, because you, very much like Watson, seem to not grasp the idea that you can not simply drop a quantifier and assume people will interpret it as 'on average', this is simply not how the English language works. When Watson says "any person who has to deal with Black employees will know" he is implying that it is expected for any black employee to be dumb, whether he meant for that expectation or not. And frankly I believe he knows damn well how his language is interpreted and just hides behind his statistics to give his bigotry the illusion of merit.
On the one hand, you're totally right, I always interpret such statements as "in average" (or some other statistical quantifier, but definitely not "all"), and I don't know how other people understand it. On the other hand, I have never seen (in online discussions/articles that I read) object to the idea that Asians are smarter than whites (in the US) (except you), or call the statement bigoted/racist; in contrary, I would consider it fact (again, with appropriate quantifiers), and the discussion seems to be focused on how to deal with this fact (e.g. negative racial discrimination for Asians in universities).
Well I have my own beliefs of course, and they might taint my rationality in accepting such statements. Still it's good to be vigilant, it might be true that Asians on average perform better at certain tests at a certain age, this might not at all mean they were born more intelligent and might only correlate with their upbringing and the expectancies of the world around them.
Also, I think universities have the job to yield brilliant researchers, inventors and engineers. I don't think any racial prejudice would be a very fundamental way of working towards that goal, so I'd rather they not do it, even if it means whites would rarely be accepted.
Of course, that whole problem might be caused by their entry exams not being a very good way of selecting for their goal, but that's me as a hopeful white person :p
Also, I think universities have the job to yield brilliant researchers, inventors and engineers. I don't think any racial prejudice would be a very fundamental way of working towards that goal, so I'd rather they not do it, even if it means whites would rarely be accepted.
Of course, that whole problem might be caused by their entry exams not being a very good way of selecting for their goal, but that's me as a hopeful white person :p
Height is highly heritable. North and South Koreans are genetically the same. The average South Korean is six inches taller than the average North Korean.
What does the assertion that intelligence is heritable mean to you?
What does the assertion that intelligence is heritable mean to you?
What does the assertion that intelligence is heritable mean to you?
It means that if I dropped a bunch of Danes into South Korea, their children would be closer in height to their cohort in Denmark than would the children of another group of Danes dropped into North Korea. The North Korean Danes would be taller than the North Koreans and the South Korean Danes would be taller than the South Koreans.
It means that if I dropped a bunch of Danes into South Korea, their children would be closer in height to their cohort in Denmark than would the children of another group of Danes dropped into North Korea. The North Korean Danes would be taller than the North Koreans and the South Korean Danes would be taller than the South Koreans.
Not going to discuss with a a throwaway account. You can go back to /r/greatapes and have fun with your racist pals.
Using throwaway accounts makes sense for discussing controversial topics that people could use to e.g. damage your career.
There is never anything to discuss with people who would rather close their eyes and ears and call others names than bother to read discomforting information.
Not to mention that it is essentially Franklin's medal anyway...
As a biologist, every time I read a story about Watson or Crick I am compelled to include Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins names in the conversation (granted the HN audience may not need an introduction to their influence).
This article seems to cast doubt on how important they were in the discovery of the structure of DNA and into inheritable capability, however it is widely known amongst scientists how large of a role they played in Watson and Crick's discovery:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkins
This article seems to cast doubt on how important they were in the discovery of the structure of DNA and into inheritable capability, however it is widely known amongst scientists how large of a role they played in Watson and Crick's discovery:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkins
These days they teach it in school like Franklin did all the work while Watson & Crick were allowed to barge in and steal the credit due primarily to male privilege, which IMO goes too far (it ignores Crick's mathematical contribution, Franklin's unfortunate timing, and the ownership structure of lab projects).
The real shame is that we insist on shoehorning a fundamentally collaborative endeavor into a winner-take-all social construct.
The real shame is that we insist on shoehorning a fundamentally collaborative endeavor into a winner-take-all social construct.
The version I learned was that Franklin did all the experimental work, while Crick did the Fourier transforms in his head to interpret Franklin's results. Not sure about Watson's contribution, though.
Sounds like your teacher/prof was more level-headed than mine. Was Crick's contribution to the mathematical theory explained or was it sort of implied that he just happened to have the right training?
The way I see it, both the diffraction theorists and the crystallization experimentalists deserve credit. Had things happened differently the experimentalists would have gotten all the credit and that would have been just as wrong.
The way I see it, both the diffraction theorists and the crystallization experimentalists deserve credit. Had things happened differently the experimentalists would have gotten all the credit and that would have been just as wrong.
Watson and crick also together figured out how the known structures of the nucleobases could assemble to become a helix, beyond realizing that Franklin's diffractions implied a double helix (which has a different signature than a single helix, Pauling's incorrect theory)
> As a biologist, every time I read a story about Watson or Crick I am compelled to include Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins names in the conversation (granted the HN audience may not need an introduction to their influence).
+1
I was about to do the same.
+1
I was about to do the same.
>The sale also became symbolic of a quest for redemption after he became what he called an “unperson” in the scientific community seven years ago
So much for science as a bastion of disinterested objective investigation.
When a community's greatest minds (such as Perelman, Grothendieck, etc., in math, for instance) become alienated from the larger community, when conformity and publishing quantity (over quality) is rewarded, and dissent is punished, when information, results, and access is kept from all but a few of the elect, we have a system which is not fulfilling its promise or its purpose.
So much for science as a bastion of disinterested objective investigation.
When a community's greatest minds (such as Perelman, Grothendieck, etc., in math, for instance) become alienated from the larger community, when conformity and publishing quantity (over quality) is rewarded, and dissent is punished, when information, results, and access is kept from all but a few of the elect, we have a system which is not fulfilling its promise or its purpose.
This was not "disinterested objective investigation", it was ranting from a bigot. He's also said (among other things) that he won't hire fat people, and that women aren't as good as men at science.
I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about.
I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about.
I am condemning the reaction to the comments, not defending those comments themselves (which I have not investigated thoroughly).
>I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about.
I agree with this point (and would go further by removing the celebrity condition), and it is probably applicable to Watson, just as it is to most who condemn him.
>I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that they actually know nothing about.
I agree with this point (and would go further by removing the celebrity condition), and it is probably applicable to Watson, just as it is to most who condemn him.
> I am condemning the reaction to the comments
Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? (This was the reaction to his comments.) I mean, leaving aside the legal issues of having someone in a management position saying something like that. Morally, you feel that this is wrong?
Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? (This was the reaction to his comments.) I mean, leaving aside the legal issues of having someone in a management position saying something like that. Morally, you feel that this is wrong?
>Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things?
No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate, depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math" instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in this instance, it would require a great deal of interpretation to get a legitimate expression of bigotry out of his initial remarks. He was punished not for prejudice, but for breaking a social taboo. Same analysis applies to Shirtgate and Larry Summers on sex differences.
No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate, depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math" instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in this instance, it would require a great deal of interpretation to get a legitimate expression of bigotry out of his initial remarks. He was punished not for prejudice, but for breaking a social taboo. Same analysis applies to Shirtgate and Larry Summers on sex differences.
> No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said.
I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your properly.
Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic difference in intelligence, as far as we can tell. It might be different if the data actually backed up what he said, but as far as I can tell, it was simple racist ranting.
Nobody was punished for shirtgate. A guy apologized for doing something wrong. Everyone forgave him. The end.
I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your properly.
Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic difference in intelligence, as far as we can tell. It might be different if the data actually backed up what he said, but as far as I can tell, it was simple racist ranting.
Nobody was punished for shirtgate. A guy apologized for doing something wrong. Everyone forgave him. The end.
>Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion?
well, using this quote as a source (can't find the original):
>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”
This is more of an off-the-cuff, vague, and poorly considered comment. So, no.
However, it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scrutiny (compared to the stupid and incorrect things said all the time by other scientists), most often from people who are equally unqualified to comment. Also notable is the assumption on the part of critics who assumed he stated the basis for the difference is genetic, which he did not in fact say.
>Nobody was punished for shirtgate
He was bullied to tears by a giant internet hate mob telling him he was a bad person on one of the most significant days in his career, all for his choice of apparel. The same people, I might add, who advocate internet censorship in order to curb "harassment".
well, using this quote as a source (can't find the original):
>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”
This is more of an off-the-cuff, vague, and poorly considered comment. So, no.
However, it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scrutiny (compared to the stupid and incorrect things said all the time by other scientists), most often from people who are equally unqualified to comment. Also notable is the assumption on the part of critics who assumed he stated the basis for the difference is genetic, which he did not in fact say.
>Nobody was punished for shirtgate
He was bullied to tears by a giant internet hate mob telling him he was a bad person on one of the most significant days in his career, all for his choice of apparel. The same people, I might add, who advocate internet censorship in order to curb "harassment".
There is a difference between dissent and bigotry. Obviously Watson is a racist and a bigot,and is treated by his peers accordingly.
> So much for science as a bastion of disinterested objective investigation.
Nazi scientists and race theorists also thought they were "objectively investigating". You people never learn.
> So much for science as a bastion of disinterested objective investigation.
Nazi scientists and race theorists also thought they were "objectively investigating". You people never learn.
>bigotery * [sic, before ninja edit]
>You people never learn
A telling choice of words. It goes without saying that I firmly stand against over-generalization and stereotyping. This is evidently not true of all commenters, however.
>You people never learn
A telling choice of words. It goes without saying that I firmly stand against over-generalization and stereotyping. This is evidently not true of all commenters, however.
> I firmly stand against over-generalization and stereotyping.
Obviously you dont,if you find anything that guys says defensible, I tell you that from scientist to scientist.
Obviously you dont,if you find anything that guys says defensible, I tell you that from scientist to scientist.
Who buys something like that? Not that I don't like to see the money of a wealthy person going into science. Better than a stupid investment into (put here whatever multiplies money).
But to me its like eating the heart of your enemy to let his strength leap over to you. Thank god, it doesn't work.
Is it only me, or is it a weird purchase?
Is it only me, or is it a weird purchase?
"Decoding DNA" is such a bad name. He figured out the double helix.
DNA isn't decoded yet. Genes have a preamble, and postamble, and we have very little idea what they mean, we only know what compounds are "requested" by the codons in the middle of the gene. There are large "empty" parts in chromosomes (not just the telomeres), and while we know they're not optional, exactly what they're for is anyone's guess. Furthermore, genes are known to contain some sort of symbolic pointers to other genes, which we don't know the format of.
Also the way the cell nucleus decodes DNA into the chromatin network, which should be thought of as the CPU that "executes" DNA contains a lot of stuff we don't know about. For starters, there are molecules linking across DNA molecules ... what do they signify ? How do they work ? How is gene expression controlled by the DNA (presumably has to do with the pre-and-postambles of genes). How does the pointer resolution in genes work ?
What we know as the double helix, what everybody thinks of as DNA, is really a picture of sex (or "conception" if you want to get technical. That's why we have sex of course). DNA only occurs in that form during reproduction (could be cell, or organism reproduction of course, though during cell (asexual) reproduction it's only present for a few seconds at best, during sexual reproduction it exists for a few minutes)
DNA isn't decoded yet. Genes have a preamble, and postamble, and we have very little idea what they mean, we only know what compounds are "requested" by the codons in the middle of the gene. There are large "empty" parts in chromosomes (not just the telomeres), and while we know they're not optional, exactly what they're for is anyone's guess. Furthermore, genes are known to contain some sort of symbolic pointers to other genes, which we don't know the format of.
Also the way the cell nucleus decodes DNA into the chromatin network, which should be thought of as the CPU that "executes" DNA contains a lot of stuff we don't know about. For starters, there are molecules linking across DNA molecules ... what do they signify ? How do they work ? How is gene expression controlled by the DNA (presumably has to do with the pre-and-postambles of genes). How does the pointer resolution in genes work ?
What we know as the double helix, what everybody thinks of as DNA, is really a picture of sex (or "conception" if you want to get technical. That's why we have sex of course). DNA only occurs in that form during reproduction (could be cell, or organism reproduction of course, though during cell (asexual) reproduction it's only present for a few seconds at best, during sexual reproduction it exists for a few minutes)
> What we know as the double helix, what everybody thinks of as DNA, is really a picture of sex (or "conception" if you want to get technical. That's why we have sex of course). DNA only occurs in that form during reproduction (could be cell, or organism reproduction of course, though during cell (asexual) reproduction it's only present for a few seconds at best, during sexual reproduction it exists for a few minutes)
??? What are you talking about? DNA exists in a double helical form almost always. An exception is when it is "unzipped" for transcription or duplication. (And that's only a few nucleotides at a time.)
I have no idea how you're relating sex to the double helical structure of DNA.
??? What are you talking about? DNA exists in a double helical form almost always. An exception is when it is "unzipped" for transcription or duplication. (And that's only a few nucleotides at a time.)
I have no idea how you're relating sex to the double helical structure of DNA.
In the chromatin network there's no double helix, because it's always mostly unrolled and various things are bound to it. It looks a lot more like a ladder.
The double helix as analyzed only exists as part of chromosomes.
The double helix as analyzed only exists as part of chromosomes.
It seems you are mistaking DNA's quaternary structure for its tertiary structure. DNA's tertiary structure remains helical while wound up in chromatin.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Nucleosom...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_structure
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Nucleosom...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_structure
seekingtruth(1)
This is a simplified argument but if you gave any adolescent group an assignment to study and argue the Talmud, then I think they'd naturally grow into inquisitive-minded individuals well versed in critical thinking. It seems clear that the intellectual success of European Jews is directly related to their cultural upbringing and academic endeavors.
I doubt anyone has ever suggested otherwise. The fact that 27% of Nobel Prize winners in the 20th century were of Ashkenazi heritage is most likely directly related to their culture and a ton of endless hard work. We are all homo sapiens. Yes some cultures are worse off than others but I see no evidence of any genetic superiority. It's not like all these academic achievers are coyly existing on a beach in a tropical environment, barely exerting any effort, and causally changing the world of science. No, it takes a ton of effort.
(My comment is based on Watson's theory on IQ and race, and books like, The Bell Curve. And I'm not promoting religion just the critical thinking skills developed by analyzing and arguing a complicated text.)
I doubt anyone has ever suggested otherwise. The fact that 27% of Nobel Prize winners in the 20th century were of Ashkenazi heritage is most likely directly related to their culture and a ton of endless hard work. We are all homo sapiens. Yes some cultures are worse off than others but I see no evidence of any genetic superiority. It's not like all these academic achievers are coyly existing on a beach in a tropical environment, barely exerting any effort, and causally changing the world of science. No, it takes a ton of effort.
(My comment is based on Watson's theory on IQ and race, and books like, The Bell Curve. And I'm not promoting religion just the critical thinking skills developed by analyzing and arguing a complicated text.)
Non Jewish, non-prize winner here! If culture and this 'ton of hard work' is such a winning strategy why hasn't it been emulated by other groups of people. The Jewish achievement is extraordinary: twelve million out of six billion winning 32% of Nobel Prizes in the 21st century! And this is supposed to be down to hard work and culture? Strange how a vast range of characteristics are known to be determined by our genes but apparently, intellectual eminence cannot possibly be linked to genes. What is remarkable is the determination with which folk set their face against considering any such interpretation. What are they scared of?
Another component in intelligence may be the parasite burden people in certain regions have.
http://www.economist.com/node/16479286
http://www.economist.com/node/16479286
[deleted](1)
> Jim Watson is one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. He is also a peevish bigot. History will remember him for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA, in 1953. This week, Watson is ensuring that history, or at least the introduction to every obituary, will also remember him for being a jerk.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...