Sola
beta
2 months

Is the Nobel prize community a bunch of bullies? Is the PC crowd against science? Or is DNA science racist? I'm not the one to answer this, but I wish someone could.

15243votes
13.434SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
46
843
15243
USA, Houston
54 comments
JADED JOEY (🙊5)
What have your questions to do with anything mentioned in the article?
10
Wil
Politics is you answer.
11
🌅Chadley
Identity politics have gone too far.
11
Siima
So beautiful 💕💕👍
10
Chrisp
If he only could back his statement about racial intelligence with science, like he could with the double helix. Since he is an atheist, he would not have had any problems with the notion of peer reviewed evidence. Opinions matter nothing in the world of science without evidence.
12
tóót
Pro Creator
DNA science is still somewhat of a mystery and anyone can read anything into current findings regarding race. None of those concepts around race are fully scientifically backed up. Like mentioned in the article, the views of this person are covering only a narrow perspective on one end of possible interpretations and concepts which are as non-scientific as almost all other concepts around race and DNA.
30
Hanover FisteAuthor
I like your answer
10
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
Joey
There are a few things we know about IQ. IQ has some merit as something you measure. We can measure it pretty well. I mean, this is messed up to say but, there are differences between races with the IQ's of some racial being slightly but statistically significantly lower than some other racial groups. I believe this is true even when controlling for socioeconomic status and geographic location. The logical conclusion is that there is some genetic component. When the variables are eliminated one can draw a conclusion. However, there are other things going on. There's a trend of average IQ increasing in the general population over time. Also, very few black Americans are 100% African or even close to that. Hispanic folks are by definition multi-racial. So there could be something else going on and we haven't considered it yet. I think Watson stated his opinion bluntly, and he may be wrong, but it's not like this opinion is discredited even if it's offensive.
Hanover FisteAuthor
I think we can recognize what intelligence is, but I don't think the "intelligence quotient" is completely accurate. I think we can draw many conclusions on race, but that doesn't necessarily make his invalid. He hasn't been proven wrong, but only contraversial, so they bullied him imo.
Joey
Hanover Fiste, like jaded Joey pointed out, I don't think the Nobel committee bullied him. I didn't see anything about them in your article. Likewise, there wasn't a discussion about the PC crowd. His former lab stripped him of his titles because his opinions could hurt them in the scientific community.
10
Hanover FisteAuthor
Joey, ok I just had questions that are not covered in the article, and thought I'd ask for other opinions
Joey
Hanover Fiste, gotcha. It was confusing because I don't see the connection to the Nobel committee.
Hanover FisteAuthor
Joey, ok, I guess I was confused by "titles" here. My bad. But the question remains, was he being bullied because of his belief?
5̀øÑ͜ ̕0f Æ̨ ğłīťç̴H
opinions/claims aren't science. "he said that genes cause a difference on average between black people and white people on IQ tests. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory called his latest remarks “reprehensible” and “unsupported by science”," Not that I took a deep look in his case into it but I couldn't find scientific evidence of his claims that it's just because dna. There are also socioeconomic as well as many other factors which need to be considered. "Further research is needed" is a common phrase but not so for this guy, he sells his opinion as a matter of fact.
10
Hanover FisteAuthor
True, but without opinions, and claims, we would have nothing to study. It all starts with a hypothesis, which resembles an idea that's based on observations. Is it wrong, today, to make race based observations? If so, then we shall end all studies on race.
5̀øÑ͜ ̕0f Æ̨ ğłīťç̴H
Hanover Fiste, its not more or less wrong as before 100 years.. Sure one can have also the opinion that the earth is flat because he observes a flat horizon. If that is all that backs his hypothesis up and he's denying any other fact and still sell it as a solid theory then its nothing more as pseudoscience. Correlation isn't causation easy as that. But without knowing his exact claims and how it had affect his work/method I cant make any valuable statement about his case.
Hanover FisteAuthor
5̀øÑ͜ ̕0f Æ̨ ğłīťç̴H, not a very valid comparison. 500 years ago, we could argue a flat vs round earth. Today we have firm knowledge. However our knowledge of DNA is still limited, and we still have questions about nature vs nurture. I personally believe in nurture, but twins separated at birth seem to provide evidence for nature as well. Simply put, it's probably both.
1
5̀øÑ͜ ̕0f Æ̨ ğłīťç̴H
Hanover Fiste, well it wasn't a fair comparison but I think was valid enough to make the point clear.
Hanover FisteAuthor
5̀øÑ͜ ̕0f Æ̨ ğłīťç̴H, there is still a "nature vs nurture" debate in behavioral psychology.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, I believe it is a combination. Which one is stringer will friend on the genes, circumstances, and other variables I don't yet understand.
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, nobody can fully pin this one down yet. As I mentioned, there's several cases of twins separated from birth, and became mature adults, yet they have so many things in common. Why do we grow up so much like our parents? Nurture? But what about that parent you never knew? Can't be nurture.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, it is not going to be one or the other. It will be a combination. I used to believe we are born as blank slates, and that every behavior is learned. That seems to be the most prominent theory, but I don't know if it is completely and entirely accurate, anymore.
3
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, I've always said that genetics may provide "tendencies" and abilities but nurturing will have a stronger and more lasting effect on your morals and character. Unless you have some real physical impediment, everyone has genius potential, but that is lost around age 3 or 4 if you aren't challenged early on.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, it's possible. I don't consider it lost, just much harder to attain if not sufficiently challenged early on. The relationship between behavior and dna fascinates me. If I ever pursue a PhD, it will likely be in that area.
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, the "lost" part is the genius potential. It depends how long education is deferred. There's been many cases where a neglected child was rescued and never really became much. In extreme cases, like after age 14, the ability to learn language is lost. Case studies have shown that language skills have a small window. However, if you develop it with just one language, you can learn a second one at any age.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, it is definitely tougher and although they may not be able to speak as you and i can. Individuals can be taught to speak well into their teens. (I know from having taught them). It's one of the things that I do for a living. Among the skills I teach is FCT. Functional communication training. Basically teaching them to ask for the things they want. The receptive skills are often harder to teach than communication skills, simply because the motivation has to be contrived, whereas with communication it is inherit *most of the time*
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, sorry I'm gonna call you out here. It's extremely rare to find a neglected child that's so bad they got to 14 having never learned to speak. There's only a handful of cases. In every case they have never learned to speak. I've made a card, just a couple months ago, about a severely neglected child, she speaks, but has very low intelligence.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, you misunderstand. I don't work with typically developing children. The children I work with all have developmental delays. Is that what you're attempting to call me out on?
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, not to the extent I was discussing here. Surely there's delays above average, but I was making the point that if language skills are delayed long enough it can't be developed at all... Some believe that if the language part of your brain doesn't develop by age 14 it never will. I am quite sure you've never worked with one of those cases.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, I work with children of all ages and with varying developmental delays *that's about as detailed as I'll get*. I believe as long as the brain is functioning you have the ability to learn. The Broca's area however, if damaged may inhibit speech. I aspire to the belief that lack of use will cause atrophy, but not death of an area within the brain. Atrophy requires regular exercise. The brain is a bit trickier than your muscles to exercise, and restore healthy blood flow to though.
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
🌅Chadley
Lol it looks as though this new mute feature has taken the life out of the app.
3
Hyde
It kinda has. That and a lot of folks simply left
1
Hanover FisteAuthor
Yes it has. Anyone who disagrees is muted. I saw it coming but they didn't listen.
1
JADED JOEY (🙊5)
Hanover Fiste, nobody who disagrees is muted here.
Hanover FisteAuthor
JADED JOEY (🙊5), not on MY cards! I welcome a good debate...
1
🌅Chadley
JADED JOEY (🙊5), Hanover Fiste, Hyde, Plag - I miss you
10
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
flack
It’s the outdated and silly opinions of an old man. His partner did most of the work anyway. I think separating it data by “race” is worthless. I think you can get way more interesting results by dividing it more finely. If you are doing it by region and by tribal or local group it may have some merit but not much. And it and dna aren’t easy to link directly yet. There are other mechanisms of heredity to take into account. I haven’t read this particular article, but I heard his Nobel award was removed, is that the case or not? If it was that’s stupid. Don’t rewrite history. If it’s just his position in a company, then it’s the right thing. I was more upset about the lovecraft sci fi award being changed to be honest.
Hanover FisteAuthor
"his partner did most of the work anyway" is an assumption, and not relevant. Tesla's partner did most of his work by providing him with tools and a lab. Let's strip him of all his dignity, and do it while he is still alive. I agree that separating data by race is stupid. Let's quit doing that. Let's ALL quit doing that. Please left wing media, stop doing that!
flack
Hanover Fiste, not really. To be more clear, concerning the work that led to the Nobel prize for describing the double helix structure of dna, using xRay crystallography, Francis crick was the one who had been working on the problem the longest, contributed most to the photographic process used, and had the greater background in the biological processes of the pair. Watson was a relative latecomer to the problem. So it’s an assumption on your part to call it an assumption. And I’m not using the amount of work as a justification to strip someone of their titles. Merely to illustrate that it’s not that big of a loss in my opinion. As I said, he should remain on the list of Nobel prize winners, that happened and should not be undone. But if his titles were purely derived from his position at a company, then that’s what happens. If you represent a company badly they distance themselves... so it goes.
Hanover FisteAuthor
flack, lots of people were trying to make an electric light. Edison discovered using a tungsten filament in a vacuum. It doesn't matter who worked on it the longest, it matters who made the damn breakthrough. Every researcher stands on the shoulders of others. Your point is not valid.
flack
Hanover Fiste, this is true, and in fact the image that crick and Watson used to determine the double helix structure was taken by another team of scientists. That isn’t my point. My point is that it’s well accepted that crick was the driving force behind the discovery. I’m sure Watson’s input was key, but they received a joint award and truth is , crick had a chance of making the discovery without Watson, but as a physicist Watson would never have made the discovery without crick. He simply didn’t have the biochemistry background to do it.
flack
Hanover Fiste, and incidentally, after a quick spot of googling I found that Edison’s original design used a carbon filament. A design first used by Joseph Swann a year earlier. Tungsten wasn’t used for another thirty years. As you know, Edison’s real genius was getting these ideas into a practical form, which is, in a lot of ways a greater challenge, and for that he deserves all the credit.
🌅Chadley
His comments about race were poopy, his research into DNA was very much not. The racism police shouldn't be about to interfere in personal lives and scare people into making reprimands. No one should have that power.
Red Studio
Deleted by Sola moderator
Write something...
Send