Thursday, October 18, 2007

Avoid Boring People

 
I suspect most of you have heard about Jim Watson's provocative and politically incorrect comments as quoted in the Sunday Times last weekend [The elementary DNA of Dr Watson]. The article about Watson was written by Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, a scientist who lived with, and worked with, Watson about ten years ago. You have to read the entire article to get a sense of how she approaches her subject. In my opinion, she presents an accurate view of a man who seeks controversy and hates political correctness. This often gets him into trouble but he likes trouble.

Here's the paragraph that caused all the fuss ...
Back in 1990, the journal Science commented: “To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script.” When, in 2000, he left an audience reeling by suggesting a link between skin colour and sex drive – hypothesising that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos – some journalists suggested he had “opened a transatlantic rift”. American scientists accused him of “trading on past successes to promote opinions that have little scientific basis”. British academics countered that subjects should not be off limits because they are politically incorrect. Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution, said that “nothing should stop you ascertaining the scientific truth; science must be free of concerns about gender and race”.

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”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
Now, Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe is not an idiot. She knew very well that when she printed that part of the interview it would attract attention. The article was commissioned to promote Watson's new book Avodi Boring People and Hunt-Grubbe makes the obvious connection.
Watson will no doubt enthusiastically counter the inevitable criticisms that will arise. He once commented to a fellow scientist – perhaps optimistically – that “the time was surely not far off when academia would have no choice but to hand political correctness back to the politicians”. Even after a year at the lab, I am still unnerved by his devil-may-care compulsion to say what he believes. Critics may see his acceptance of “softer-science” studies – that attempt to link IQ with specific genes, but remove society and other factors from the equation – as a dangerously flippant approach to a complex issue. His comments, however, although seemingly unguarded, are always calculated. Not maliciously, but with the mischievous air of a great mind hoping to be challenged. I ask him how he placates those he offends. “I try to use humour or whatever I can to indicate that I understand other people having other views,” he explains.

As I motor back to New York, I reflect on a man who – at nearly 80 – is, and will remain, an immensely powerful and revered force in science. I wonder whether it’s possible, as his desire to shock seems so strong, that a fear of boring people really does play on his mind. Perhaps the best description of the man is from the driver. “Dr Watson’s so kind and still very young at heart,” he drawls as we leave the campus behind. “He’s got a lot of curiosity about everything and he’s always working. But to him it isn’t work: it’s a challenge to the mind. And if he runs into a problem, it’s fun time.”
Sometimes I wonder whether the world wouldn't be a better place with a few more Jim Watsons around. His honesty—whether you agree with him or not—is refreshing. As a society we often have this unnerving tendency to avoid issues that are too much of a threat to the way we would like things to be. Watson is like the young child who says, "Look, there's an elephant in the room."



24 comments:

  1. Nonsense nonsense nonsesen. watson is not a great mind at all. He is juts refreshing long refuted stupid ideas about gentic determinism and racism.
    I call you a yellow-bellied appeaser for this, Larry. And for lonking to that genocide promoter, Mr Hitchens.
    Hitches and Watson respresent exactly what I hate the most: the extension of fascist bullshit under a façade of science and reason.
    I'm very sad you think this is "stimulating". IT is pseudosciece hogwash of the worst.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, the article does shed light on one thing. I'd assumed the title of the book was about avoiding people who are boring. But this sentence:

    "I wonder whether it’s possible, as his desire to shock seems so strong, that a fear of boring people really does play on his mind."

    makes me think that it's about avoiding making other people feel bored. (Or both... but the latter way makes more sense. This debate is anything but boring!)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Watson's impulse is similar to that of people who cut on themselves: it reflects the need to do something, anything, to feel alive. And it is about as productive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Discussing ufology is way more fun. that is my choice, if it all simply boils down to choosing a pseudocience for entertainment. But science is not entertaimentand Watson IS a racist, chauvinistic fool, no better than that. Deal with it. .

    ReplyDelete
  5. eventually, the shock-jock strategy wears out. People can predict you will say something exaggerated and along what lines it will be. You become an official retard. And that's that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James Watson is just spewing discredited racist garbage. Unfortunately, he is not just a lone crank; there is a larger history to this. Cold Spring Harbor was once a major center of eugenics. Watson's views on eugenics and race were mainstream in biology until well into the last century and are still held by many (though not all) psychometrists and behavioral geneticists. Geneticist Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele of Skeptic Magazine recently wrote a book on race differences in IQ. Watson's other statements on using science to make an improved humanity are quoted by the transhumanist movement.

    Hitchens is not a "genocide promoter." He certainly does not advocate genocide against Muslims or any ethnic group like Iranians and Persians. He supports the Iraq War out of solidarity to the Kurds. He was on the side of Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims against Christian Serbs. He supports a multi-faith Lebanon and says that the US should be the side of Iranian democracy movement. When he talks about killing more of them, he is referring to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Agree or not, that's not pro-genocide.

    Tupaia

    ReplyDelete
  7. There's a difference between being non-boring and being mindlessly provocative for its own sake. The latter is an intellectual conceit with no inherent virtue as far as I can see.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It becomes boring, at least for smart people, to observe some fool proclaim evident falsehoods to gte a reatcion. The real debates and problems, of course, are elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  9. correction: I intended to write "like Arabs and Persians" in the second paragraph.

    Tupaia

    ReplyDelete
  10. "As a society we often have this unnerving tendency to avoid issues that are too much of a threat to the way we would like things to be."

    To some extent that's true. Scientists should not fear to tackle sensitive subjects. However those that do so must realise that they have an even greater responsibility than other scientists to ensure that what they say in public is actually solid science, not wild speculation or worse. James Watson fails to understand this, and I'm a little concerned that perhaps you don't either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. truth is, some "scinetists" think it is just a amtter of spewing politically incorrect BS, to make themselves appear as very objective, detached scientists. As stupid as that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've often thought that one of the best (but also most dangerous) to stimulate independent thinking is to challenge people with the evidence for provocative and outrageous half-truths.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stephen says,

    However those that do so must realise that they have an even greater responsibility than other scientists to ensure that what they say in public is actually solid science, not wild speculation or worse. James Watson fails to understand this, and I'm a little concerned that perhaps you don't either.

    Not to worry Stephen. I think I've got a grip.

    BTW, can you give me your opinion about some other scientists named David and Lynn? I'm a little concerned about hypocrisy. I expect you to call them racists. Let me know what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  14. bayman says,

    I've often thought that one of the best (but also most dangerous) to stimulate independent thinking is to challenge people with the evidence for provocative and outrageous half-truths.

    It used to be an effective teaching tool. I can also remember another effective tool. Back in the olden days Professors used to tease Irish students about always being drunk, and tease women about not being good in math and science. Newfies (Newfoundlanders) were always stupid.

    These were always interpreted as sarcasm—which they were. We all knew that the speaker meant exactly the opposite. You can't do that in 2007. Sarcasm is wasted on people today. When speaking to fools, everything has to be literal.

    Watson's biggest problem is that he hasn't learned that lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  15. i think it sis downright stupid to suggest watson was being sarcastical.
    stop laundering the man, Larry. its pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Back in the olden days Professors used to tease Irish students about always being drunk, and tease women about not being good in math and science. Newfies (Newfoundlanders) were always stupid.

    These were always interpreted as sarcasm—which they were.

    ******************************
    How do you know they were interpreted as sarcasm all the time? A number of women from those "olden days" that I know would disagree with you.

    Enabling sexism and bigotry is not something to be proud of.

    As for the David and Lynn article yes I think it is biased and troubling. It should be knocked around accordingly. Why isn't it drawing the same attention as Watson? Well because Watson is all over the media and is famous. Most scientists, let alone the general public, know who in the world David and Lynn are.

    ReplyDelete
  17. sanders says,
    "i think it sis downright stupid to suggest watson was being sarcastical."

    I think it sis downright stupid to suggest that you or anyone else can read Watson's intent from a newspaper quote posted on the internet. Of course that doesn't mean you're wrong either.

    Larry says,
    "Newfies (Newfoundlanders) were always stupid."

    Larry my son, ye gotta a lotta nerve b'y. Telling me I'm stupid because I'm a Newfie. When I mentioned challenging people with half-truths I meant only if they don't relate to me. I've got half a mind to go to the media and tell them what a racist you are. The other half says tell me a good Newfie joke and I'll laugh my arse off. Guess a good sense of sarcasm and 9/10 of a PhD can thicken the skin and instill a sense of humor just as well as a life of Screech, salt fish and molasses sandwiches.

    ReplyDelete
  18. you guys mean to say I should be laughing, that watson meant the exact opositte of what he said. AAaaaha that good funny ole chap, watson. Always pulling his "racist" gig.

    Are guys idiots? How far will you go to defend the father of DNA?

    Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sanders,
    I have no idea whether he was kidding or not. What I do know is that personally I didn't find most of the comments in question to be either funny or accurate. Nor would I ever utter such things myself. My reaction to his comments was at first shock, disbelief and outrage. Then, I thought a lot about his arguments and what he was saying, and tried to figure out why I disagreed with his conclusions. This led to several heated debates with colleagues over the value of IQ tests, human evolution, the validity of "race" as a biological concept, the pitfalls of genetic testing, the right of parents to access genetic information and make decisions about their unborn children, etc., etc. etc. Looking around the blogosphere, I'd say his comments have provoked many similar discussions around the world.

    So, in the end, Watson's comments get him tagged as an ignorant racist or a irresponsible famous scientist (which he may or may not be), but in exchange, a lot of the public is stimulated to do some independent thinking about some of the most important issues facing the future of human genetics. Not a bad day's work if you don't care about your reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. nonsense. Nobel prize winners should know better than use their loudspeakers to promote their twisted racist views.Talk about giving the example.

    How many racists do you think feel totally vindicated right now? The father of DNA said it, you know. None other.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sanders,
    I'd agree with you there, justifying racism is the last thing famous scientists should be doing. That's one of the main reasons I was so disappointed to hear amount his comments.

    On the other hand, at least in the public arena, using the argument "because Watson said so" to defend racist policy is not going to realistically hold much water. While "racists" might take private solace in some of Watson's comments (although do you really believe such people are looking to scientists for justification...?), I doubt they will produce any new converts.

    Like most people, I'd be happier if such an imminent biologist had not said a few of these things. But I doubt the consequences will be as catastrophic as you suggest.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't think there is a problem with outspokenness or lack of views in the world, not even in high places. But there is definitive a lack of responsibility towards one's profession in people who has safe retreat places. Watson will be grouped with racist scientists such as William Schockley.

    If anything it shows the need for removing the pedestals that people puts monuments on.

    ReplyDelete
  23. bayman says,

    Larry says,
    "Newfies (Newfoundlanders) were always stupid."

    Larry my son, ye gotta a lotta nerve b'y. Telling me I'm stupid because I'm a Newfie. When I mentioned challenging people with half-truths I meant only if they don't relate to me. I've got half a mind to go to the media and tell them what a racist you are. The other half says tell me a good Newfie joke and I'll laugh my arse off. Guess a good sense of sarcasm and 9/10 of a PhD can thicken the skin and instill a sense of humor just as well as a life of Screech, salt fish and molasses sandwiches.


    Q.E.D. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. the true elefant in the room is not the possibility that some races are smarter than others, Thats like saying that Id dsign or another brand of pseudoscience is an elefant in the room

    The real ejlefant in the room is scintistic fascims, much of it born out of the simple, popular, and completley false equation genotype= phenotype

    ReplyDelete