Watson dumped
20/1/19 11:52![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fridi posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
Isn't it funny how obviously very intelligent people latch onto wacky ideas, especially later in life? He should've known how flawed an IQ test is, and how it is not a test of overall intelligence, but just instead tests how well you do tests. The Flynn effect is a good example of how flawed it is...
Honorary Titles Revoked From DNA Pioneer James Watson Over Racist Views
"Watson, who has been affiliated with the lab since 1968, stood by his controversial 2007 views of Blacks being a genetically inferior race. He won the Nobel Prize in 1962 helping discover the structure of DNA. His views still supported the archaic and invalid line of thought that race and intelligence were connected."
I'm surprised this bastard didn't try to find an alternative helix combination to justify the lack of the ability to be intelligent in black people. Probably not because he didn't try - I suppose. Heh.
(no subject)
Date: 20/1/19 12:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/19 13:55 (UTC)If I go mad and turn into a racist I hope folk will realise that I’m mad and make allowances of a kind. Maybe put me in the care of someone responsible as happened to Maggie Thatcher.
Sadness that one who helped such a great endeavour, indeed was one of the principal discoverers, should fall from such a height.
It goes to show that beyond a certain point, opinion becomes madness - please call me out if I stray from my own paths of righteousness; unless, of course, one of you have convinced me by sheer force of argument with corroborating evidence that my previously held opinion was mistaken.
(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 09:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 09:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 15:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 20:34 (UTC)Obviously, compared to Crick and Watson, Franklin was simply the lady photographer to the folk of that period who nominated men for the Nobel prize almost uniformly. But I still think it's wrong to say they plagiarised her work. You know, as well as the rest of us do, how academic papers often get published with the supervisor's name heading the list of authors; but normally folk acknowledge the other folk who actually did the work too. It is iniquitous, but so is almost all academic publication and supervision, never mind the pay-to-access academic papers because certain publishing houses saw a way of making a bigger margin on academic stuff. It's all behind a paywall near you, after all; if you can get your department to fund access that is.
(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 22:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/19 22:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/1/19 07:29 (UTC)Second, by assuming the first proposition, there is, in my opinion, only one possible explanation for the Flynn Effect and that is that the accelerating dominance and importance of standardized testing in our education system worldwide leads pupils to score higher each time as they become more accustomed to that specific way of testing which leads to obvious conclusion that the IQ test is very far from being completely reliable as its sole duty is to test how good said person is at taking tests.
There are probably multiple flaws from my logic but however many flaws one can find, this effect will always lead, in my opinion, to the conclusion that the IQ test is not greatly reliable at all.
Here's some more material on the issue.
https://www.popsci.com/why-iq-is-flawed
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4235
(no subject)
Date: 22/1/19 10:25 (UTC)While IQ tests aren't perfect, they are the best effort by a bunch of exerts in the field to measure something that is tough to pin down. I'd defer to the experts and reuse the APA's statement from the second and imho much better article:
In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place. The study of intelligence does not need politicized assertions and recriminations; it needs self-restraint, reflection, and a great deal more research. The questions that remain are socially as well as scientifically important. There is no reason to think them unanswerable, but finding the answers will require a shared and sustained effort as well as the commitment of substantial scientific resources. Just such a commitment is what we strongly recommend.
(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 10:06 (UTC)Also, according to the last tests I did my IQ has gone down by almost six and a half percent over the past decade. I may agree with that, but my wisdom has increased immeasurably, especially as I became a parent in that period. Which probably brings us back to the question; what is intelligence, and can it be separated from wisdom in any meaningful way?