Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him

Posted by samzenpus on from the return-to-sender dept.

First time accepted submitter Dave Knott writes Following the recent auction of James Watson's Nobel Prize medal, the winning bidder will return the medal to Watson. The $4.7 million winning bid was made by Alisher Usmanov, Russia's wealthiest man, a metal and telecommunications tycoon worth $15.8 billion US. In remarks carried by Russian television Tuesday, Usmanov hailed Watson one of the greatest biologists in the history of mankind, and stated that when he learned that Watson was selling the medal for charity, he decided to purchase it and immediately give it back to him.

139 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Lucky Jim by RDW · · Score: 5, Funny

    Funny if he decides to auction it again next week.

    1. Re:Lucky Jim by Livius · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It should have been donated to a museum.

  2. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So now Watson can sell it again!

  3. Re:How does anyknow know it's not fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a moron. He bought the damned medal. The only problem is if the money he bought it with was a fake. You don't spend 4 million bucks in order to swap someone's real medal with a fake one. You can do that for free. You should go into business.

  4. One good turn... by Quantus347 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finally gets another. One guy does something selfless, and another guy does too as a reward. Especially since in an auction he's not just covering the cost, he's running the price up with his participation in the bidding. When everything i read seems to drop Humanity notch-by-notch, it's nice to see something that bumps it up a bit. Kudos Human Race.

    [/Optimism]

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    1. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure... With that net worth, 4.7 million is less than 0.03%. Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k. This would be like buying the medal for $90 then returning it.

      So really it was nothing to him but will make him even more famous and "awesome" to other people.

    2. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, and most people worth $100k wouldn't give $30 to charity so it does sort of make him at least a bit kinder than average

    3. Re:One good turn... by Dzimas · · Score: 2

      Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k...

      The median *family* net worth in the United States was only $56,335 in 2013. ;)

    4. Re:One good turn... by shankarunni · · Score: 4, Informative

      Selfless? What the ****?

      Did you even read _why_ he had to auction off that medal? Read the source links, and follow them back.

      TLDR: He made himself an outcast by tossing out some really incendiary stuff about Africans, women, etc. (basically saying that they were "less intelligent", etc.) Once his sources of income (speaking, consulting) dried up, he needed to rehabilitate himself, so he's concocted this (IMO cynical) ploy of "selling his medal for charity" (yeah, right..)

      I'm sure his opinions mesh well with the Russian oligarchs'..

    5. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.

      This does not mean that members of one race are necessarily intellectually inferior to another, it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not the case. The strongest objection to the conclusion comes from a political reaction to it, and does not arise from the data itself. It would have been far more interesting to do a detailed exploration on exactly why the data appeared to indicate that than to simply make the statement about the data that he did, since there was absolutely no possible way to interpret it without him being seen as racist.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    6. Re:One good turn... by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      You're thinking of net income. Median net worth is closer to $81k (as of 2014), and the mean considerably higher than the GP's estimate.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      Regardless though, there's a huge problem here where there is an assumption that the total charitable contributions of this guy in his lifetime is encompassed by one charity auction purchase.

    7. Re:One good turn... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

      So you're suggesting what, a minimum dollar amount of charity before such a thing can be considered worthwhile? Anything less than 10% and you might as well not bother?

       

    8. Re:One good turn... by Threni · · Score: 2

      > it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a
      > possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not
      > the case

      You've got it backwards. The "sizable" data is just not sizable enough, not backed with any reputable peer reviewed studies, and therefore there's no case to answer.

      And what he's said (repeatedly) is literally an example of racism, of racist statements.

    9. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      I was going to say "I think you mean net income", but holy crap you're right. On the flip side of that, a mortgage is usually a couple hundred thousands dollars on the negative side.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only does the "average American" have a smaller pool of dollars to draw from for charity purposes, the cost of living does not scale down with net worth, so a larger fraction is already devoted to essentials. A quick google search suggests household average discretionary income of $24k (though ~80% of that is from households with annual income > 100k). So, it would be more like buying the medal for $8 (or less for most). I wouldn't disparage the "average american" for not contributing to charity. It is difficult for many to contribute very much, and is mostly limited to causes that they care a great deal about.

      That being said, I take issue with the viewpoint that because he didn't have to make any personal sacrifice to donate to charity, his donation is worthless. 4.7 million is 4.7 million, and it can do a lot of good. He is also allowed to spend it, or not spend it, any way he likes. I *do* think it's awesome that he chose to do this with it. I also doubt he did that so that I would think he's a cool guy (we've never met).

    11. Re:One good turn... by davydagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      less and less people have $30 to give to charity. But if statistics mean anything, most people who worth $100k are more willing to give to charity than those worth $100m. Large well broadcasts of millionares donating be damned, most charity actually comes from poor and middle class people. Of course don't let me stop you mixing up "willing" and "able". It only strengthens the demand for the commons and the public sphere.(inb4 some bad hyperbole)

    12. Re:One good turn... by shitzu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.

    13. Re:One good turn... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.

      So he is saying that Africans are more intelligent than Europeans?

    14. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Troll

      "cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that Wall Street Journal article where the reporter was complaining about how poor she felt on "only" 480k a year income.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Eh no. Even if Dr. Watson were a complete asshole, he's still the one co-credited with unravelling DNA and therefore his PERSONAL views aside, the whole world including yourself owe him a debt you will never repay because you have reaped the benefits from medical and pharmaceutical advances to ecological and industrial ones. Recognizing someone's contribution does not endorse their shortfalls. Otherwise the US is up shit's creek, what with all the torture, drone strikes, coups, etc...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:One good turn... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      What was selfless about Watson selling his medal to get money for himself? The guy who bought it and returned it migh be considered selfless, but Watson's act of selling his medal was certainly not. Do you even know what selfless means?

    18. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      He was saying, in a nutshell, is that in the data that he had analyzed, he could not find evidence to support the notion that Afircans are as smart as Europeans. Whether this is because this was actually a valid conclusion, or because his data set was not large enough, or because he was misinterpreting the data, or because there were potentially other causal factors influencing the data that were not accounted for is not known, but speaking for myself, I actually doubt the validity of his conclusion, and were I in his position, I would want to carefully investigate exactly why the data appeared to indicate such a result before ever thinking of making such a statement.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    19. Re:One good turn... by gman003 · · Score: 1

      "[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."

      "[There is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but] people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"

      He never specified which tests he was referring to in the first quote - I for one have not seen any studies of intelligence that showed any statistically significant link between race and intelligence, only between education and intelligence, or wealth and intelligence (unfortunately race and wealth are linked for historical reasons - given our low large-scale class mobility, it will be centuries before we can study one without concern for the effects of the other).

    20. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      I would agree that facts may be racist... since attitudes about racism or anti-racism are based only on what society might prefer to be the case, but it is always possible that real data, when measured might show that what was preferred is not reflective of reality.

      For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    21. Re:One good turn... by Livius · · Score: 1

      And if it's false, it's still not racist, just incorrect, unless it was done in bad faith.

    22. Re:One good turn... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...

      "Cost of living" is a phrase most often used to describe the amount of money it takes to live above poverty levels in a certain geographic region. "Luxuries" are not factored in, whether it's a rich person buying a yacht or a poor person buying a big-screen TV.

    23. Re:One good turn... by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      But until recently people usually had equity in their home, so it wasn't a net negative, since the home itself has value and can be sold for more than the cost of paying off the mortgage. But since the financial crisis, there is a decent segment of the population that have negative equity

    24. Re:One good turn... by Tower · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that mortgage is subtracted from the market value of the home for calculating net worth, so it isn't directly negative.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    25. Re:One good turn... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what a shithead for donating some of his resources to charity.

      He gives more money than you'll see in your life in one day, and you're shitting on him because he didn't give more? Ingrate.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    26. Re:One good turn... by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.

      I agree you cannot disprove the truth of a claim by calling it racist, but for that same reason, being factual does not preclude racism.

      Because if all factual claims are not racist, a racist statement must not be true - but if racism does not change the truth content of a claim, a racist claim could still be factual.

      Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).

    27. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      How recently? My parents never had net positive equity until they retired & paid if off with retirement money.

      In part because mortgage rates in the 1980s were in the 15-20% range. Hard to build up equity in that environment.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    28. Re:One good turn... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Racism is a belief. Facts can't hold beliefs, although they can be used to support someone's belief. Unreasonable conclusions and unreasonable interpretations of facts can be racist. Facts cannot, and logic cannot.

      Say that a bullet-proof study came out saying that blond-haired people are, on average, far less intelligent than brown-haired people (assuming some specific, concrete definition of and way of measuring "intelligence" were to be discovered). In and of itself, that would be a fact. If you add the opinion that "more intelligent is better than less intelligent", then you might come up with the prejudiced opinion that "brown-haired people are better than blond-haired people". That doesn't make the fact itself "colorist". It's only the combination of fact and preconceived opinion that makes the thought colorist.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    29. Re:One good turn... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Maybe they have kids. Maybe they live in an expensive part of the country? Maybe they have different priorities than you do?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    30. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We owe a debt to those who first discovered something? Especially when that discovery was dependent on the (mostly unaccredited) work of others? Do you not feel that Dr. Watson's work would have been done by others in his absence, making your contention highly specious?

    31. Re:One good turn... by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      Reading a source link "He plans to donate some of the proceeds to Cold Spring, where he still draws a $375,000 base salary as chancellor emeritus"

      He certainly didn't run out of money.

    32. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      So if Pauling would have gotten there first, you'd say we owe Pauling nothing. So basically your argument is, fuck them all, I don't owe anyone anything. Fine. Practice your philosophy then and go live in a cave somewhere.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    33. Re:One good turn... by Cito · · Score: 1

      I live on disability $9855 per year

      Sucks I can't help anyone

    34. Re:One good turn... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist.

      It is far easier to debunk on its face: race does not exist in hard science, but only in sociology. Genetically, there is no "race trait." Biologically, it is not a characteristic that is used. Its really a crap concept and eventually we'll stop using it. But I have deep concern for them because most people find that biologists are not as smart as other races. (See? I can talk nonsense, too!)

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    35. Re:One good turn... by davydagger · · Score: 1
      I said "worth 100k", not making 100k. I also stipulated that they are statisticly more likely to give to charity, and give a far bigger percent of what they have than those worth 100m.

      The second clause, was that other people, worth far less, are far too poor to be able to afford charity. The coverage by the media makes it seem like wealthy Billionares do the most, and its the stingy middle and working classes that need to be stopped, when really its the opposite, and you just have a media driven perception bias.

      Also, the fact that some people needat all is a sign that the system is broken, and looking at society, it can be said that some of the things that billionares do to become billionares actually impovershes other people, making them need charity in the first place.

    36. Re: One good turn... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      It is not really possible for real data, when measured, to be racist if we bankrupt every scientist interested in measuring that data.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    37. Re:One good turn... by quenda · · Score: 1

      If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.

      Actually, to steal from Cobert, facts have a well-known racial bias. Life is not fair.

    38. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...

      It's so much easier and cheaper living hand to mouth in your car, as you don't have to fund an army of cooks, secretaries, party planners, tax advisers, chauffeurs, silverware polishers, bodyguards, lawyers and prostitutes.

      That's the reason why taxes should be regressive, and real billionaires should pay no tax at all.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      How recently? My parents never had net positive equity until they retired & paid if off with retirement money.

      In part because mortgage rates in the 1980s were in the 15-20% range. Hard to build up equity in that environment.

      But except for occasional blips, the value of houses rose steadily through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (at least here in the UK) so that overall your equity increased, even if paying the interest was painful.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    40. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.

      This does not mean that members of one race are necessarily intellectually inferior to another, it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not the case. The strongest objection to the conclusion comes from a political reaction to it, and does not arise from the data itself. It would have been far more interesting to do a detailed exploration on exactly why the data appeared to indicate that than to simply make the statement about the data that he did, since there was absolutely no possible way to interpret it without him being seen as racist.

      Yes, and there is also no conclusive data that there is not a teapot orbiting the Earth.

      Anyway, the essential problem is using the word "race" in the first place, since there is no such thing. There are simply human beings, and there are trivial variations between them in terms of things like skin and hair colour, but all the rest is cultural.

      It is also incredibly foolish to use a term like "African" to cover everyone from a Professor of Physics in Lagos to an unemployed taxi driver in Cape Town.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:One good turn... by ruir · · Score: 1

      Here it was a scam buying a house as an investment. You cannot rent it, as the tenant became the owner with socialist laws to guarantee house to anybody, and you have to pay huge council taxes, and even if the tenant pays a low rent, you have to pay for all the repairs. On top of that, the tenant fucks up your house over time, and even better, when you sell it, you pay a tax of 40% on the profit you made from when you bought it, without taking inflation into account.

    42. Re:One good turn... by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1

      Your last point - "maybe they have different priorities" - is answering him "maybe you're right, and they can, but choose not to".

      --
      News for merdes. Shit that matters.
      Ask me about my sig.
    43. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 2
      Even if having a different skin colour made you a different "race", and even if IQ tests were accurate and bias-free, and even if different "races" had different average IQs, it still shouldn't make any difference to how we treat people.

      We don't say to kids "you've been tested at the age of 10 and have an IQ of 85, therefore you are not allowed any further education, you can only apply for minimum wage jobs, you can't vote and we're going to sterilise you". They are free to do the best they can with whatever gifts or disadvantages they've been given.
      So why would it make any difference if there was a slightly different proportion in IQ scores between black, white or brown skinned people?
      You'd still have some black lawyers and doctors, and some white unemployed junkies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.

      I hope that was supposed to be funny, because otherwise it's a contender for Stupidest Post of the Year.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).

      You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.

      Someone's skin colour is as trivial a differentiator as their hair or eye colour, anyway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    46. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      So your argument is that, if we equate intelligence and education, anyone who isn't as well educated is less intelligent, therefore less educated people in Africa are by definition less intelligent, so it's true to say that Africans are less intelligent?

      You might want to look at your initial assumption and consider the terms "circular reasoning" and "begging the question".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Recognizing someone's contribution does not endorse their shortfalls.

      And conversely, having made that contribution does not excuse their shortfalls.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:One good turn... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      There are genetic differences in humans that can be attributed to populations rather than individuals. A valid question to ask is are these differences solely appearance type traits or do they impact other aspects.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    49. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      the value of houses rose steadily through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000

      Definitely not the case in the US. Looks more like a cardiac rhythm here. Up and down.

      Right now, I'm trying to sell a house for 20% less than I paid for it, after owning it for 10 years - can't get a buyer.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    50. Re:One good turn... by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.

      Do I need to point out that "racial discrimination" is a subset of "discrimination"? "White truck" vs "truck".

      Discrimination is the judgement, it doesn't have to be linked to action. People get called racist for racist opinions/statements, not necessarily for racist actions.

      "whites are smarter"/"blacks are smarter" is the SAME FORM as the previous innocuous statements. Still not racist?

      How about "Whites are dumber"/"blacks are dumber"? Simple inversion of the smarter claim - still not racist?

      You may consider this playing with words, but either words communicate a concrete idea, or we're just babbling at each other.

    51. Re:One good turn... by zentigger · · Score: 1

      Yay! some guy that has been exploiting workers, preying on consumers, and wrecking environmental destruction for decades (not to mention other activities of dubious legality) gives himself a nice little pat on the back!

      What a swell chap!

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    52. Re:One good turn... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Sounds like his research was essentially meaningless, or rendered meaningless because he chose the wrong hypothesis.

      Its just as valid to claim from that basis that Africans are smarter than Europeans. After all, the data did not rule that out.

  5. Putin wouldn't return it. by mmell · · Score: 5, Funny
    In fact, Alisher would be well advised never to let Mr. Putin even see the medal. I can see Mr. Putin simply putting the medal in his pocket and making sure everyone knows how his old pal Alisher "gave it to him".

    Just sayin'.

    1. Re:Putin wouldn't return it. by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Returning it will encourage more to auction medals.
      Just wait and see until two Peace medals are up for sale (past due for the EU medal and Obama's).
      (ironically, this would be an all American way for achieving the title of most peaceful leader ever)

  6. Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watson is a scientist. He's very intelligent. He's also a fallible human being. And he's old. Put all those together and you have a recipe for some unfiltered opinions. As long as he's honestly speaking his opinions, I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.

    When you think about it, our culture's political correctness has some weird quirks. Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down, because ours is supposed to be a secular society informed by science. But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of; the best that can be said is that we don't (yet?) understand all the many factors that affect intelligence. Therefore (correct me if I'm wrong), honesty should compel us to admit that genetics, including genetics exemplified in racial groups, may constitute major factors in intelligence. And therefore, Watson's fundamental heretical belief may be... true? Is it OK to talk about this?

    1. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down, because ours is supposed to be a secular society informed by science.

      Unless the religion is propagandized as repressed and misunderstood, in which case it's given the benefit of the doubt. Wouldn't want to invite retaliation for offending them.

    2. Re:Watson is a scientist by preaction · · Score: 1

      Except Appliantologists.

    3. Re:Watson is a scientist by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The problem is that so many people have an agenda with this sort of research, it's very hard to tell who has an agenda and who is genuinely curious. Not sure what to do about this.

      And his description of Rosalind Franklin do come across as a pretty sexist, even if you make excuses for his age.

    4. Re:Watson is a scientist by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was unaware that Watson had been "blacklisted". After 39 years as Chancellor of CSHL, a good long run, which is largely a public relations function - he did show himself unsuited to continue filling that role due to his 'unfiltered' public expressed opinions (which had been occurring for quite awhile, even when he was not-so-old). Still his punishment was 'promotion' to Chancellor Emeritus with a perpetual $375,000 salary, still with a free mansion to live in. Few 'blacklisted' people are treated so favorably.

      He is still knocking down $30,000-$75,000 minimum fees for public appearances. Pretty good money for someone who is 'blacklisted'.

      What You really seem to be saying is that he should be above criticism, and not accountable for anything he says. I disagree.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    5. Re:Watson is a scientist by davmoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      He didn't wait to be old to fuck over Rosalind Franklin.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    6. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, being old is not an excuse. A racist, sexist old person is still racist and sexist. Sorry, get with the times or get out. I don't care how great of a scientist he was (and let's face is, he would not have made those discoveries without the hard work of many of scientists, some of whom never received the credit they were due). He's still a crummy person.

    7. Re:Watson is a scientist by bigtrike · · Score: 2

      Did you even see what he said? Watson's statements also went outside the bounds of science by making broad conclusions from his own anecdotal evidence. They were absolutely not scientific.

      Regarding intelligence, if you're talking about IQ tests, they're poor measurements of intelligence because they tend to be culturally biased. A lot of studies have shown that race as we know it is more of a social construct than a genetic one and what we define as races is only loosely correlated to genetic variance. Until there are better ways of testing intelligence, all we can know for sure is that genetics may be a factor or they may not.

    8. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · · Score: 1

      "Get with the times or get out" I was not referring to you, but to Watson. I just wanted to clear that up. Not looking to start a fight here. (Why can't we edit our posts?)

    9. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · · Score: 1

      In my comment below I said "get with the times or get out". I just want to clarify that I was referring to Watson, not to you. Not looking to start a fight here. I don't like conflict.

    10. Re:Watson is a scientist by jayrtfm · · Score: 2

      Yeh, a friend who was a scientist there gave me a good 10 minute rant about him. That salary would fund 8 or so post docs.

    11. Re:Watson is a scientist by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.

      Blacklisting people from society for what they say has a name. It's called censorship.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 2

      I characterized it as his expressions of honest (at least I take him at his word) opinion.

      You appear to be part of that species of fence sitters who are unwilling to commit to anything even when your position gets ridiculous. Of course some intelligence tests have some part that is biased toward cultures. They are still of some use at estimating the parts of intelligence we most care about for practical purposes. And more particularly, IQ tests are useful at predicting aptitude to excel at Western intellectual pursuits including academics in general. Do you disagree with that?

    13. Re:Watson is a scientist by Tom · · Score: 1

      Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down,

      Which world is that you live in? Religion still carries much more credit than its performance record justifies. The pope is invited to parliaments and international diplomacy as if he was somehow especially smart or important. Even the Dalai Lama is given special respect for purely religious reasons. Churches enjoy special priviledges in many countries, with tax exemption being just the tip of the iceberg.

      The simple fact is that the human brain and psychology has evolved little from tribal society and we believe or disbelieve a lot of things not due to facts or evidence, but due to group pressure, conformity, tales, authority as well as shortcuts in thinking, heuristical approaches and so on. Religion is just one example of that, superstition also still exists even though religion has already tried to root it out for a thousand years.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Probably has something to do with the fact that "measurable intelligence" doesn't have any scientific basis.

      That's politically correct baloney. Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.

    15. Re:Watson is a scientist by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I'm never quite sure if it's mere hyperbole or raging entitlement that causes people to breathlessly use the language of actual oppressive activity to describe people who are being 'punished' in ways that most of us will never have the pleasure of being treated.

      "Blacklisting" is, from time to time, an actual labor market practice, and it stings a lot more than being quietly retired to a cushy honorary position. As in, y'know, literally never working in this town (or larger area) again, prolonged unemployment, penury, that sort of fun stuff. Do people just not know or care about what the real thing looks like, or do they think themselves deserving of so much coddling that the slightest inconvenience is identical to the direst oppression?

    16. Re:Watson is a scientist by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews

      Can anyone name me a black sub-suharan psychologist? Now, let's try the same with Ashkenazi Jews. (Freud comes to mind immediately for me -- but he's not the only brilliant mind)

      I find it simpler to explain the differences in the tests with the differences of the people who created them.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    17. Re:Watson is a scientist by AlreadyStarted · · Score: 1

      But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of; the best that can be said is that we don't (yet?) understand all the many factors that affect intelligence.

      I believe the "dogma" you refer to is the scientific method. The position you are describing (I'm not implying you're taking it) posits a causal relationship exists between the totality of sub-Saharan Black African genetic heritage and lower comparative intelligence with respect to another group.

      This is extremely difficult to show, and in my opinion rightfully receives criticism unrelated to it's social implications.

    18. Re:Watson is a scientist by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think there are some good, sound, scientific reasons that intelligence differences along racial lines are not genetic (at least in major part). Simplest among these is that there is as much evolutionary pressure from problems such as tropical diseases as there is from survival during an ice age, or similar factors that are invoked to "scientifially "explain these differences.
                In general, Science frequently uses Occam's Razor in one of its classic forms "It is vain to explain with more what can be explained with fewer". Explanations that somehow give special weight to the selection pressures that supposedly improved European or Asian migrants and treat the human evolutionary period like Africa was some sort of peaceful paradise where people had no reason not to stay jolly, dumb and lazy, are perfect examples of needless and counter-scientific complexity.
              These are usually offered with pseudo-scientific claims that somehow attacks by diseases or parasites or large predators on the African proto-human population, are not sustained at the right frequency, or in some exact way that was needed, and only survival against one particular stressor caused evolutionary pressure. Sometimes these get very elaborate, with claims that only one thing, such as glaciers, produced the precise combination of stressors needed to trigger evolution - wars, for example, didn't count as an evolutionary driver, unless they were wars against a distinct species offshoot such as the Neandertals, or diseases didn't count because they didn't happen on a yearly cycle like glacial advances, etc. That's special pleading, not science.

      With that said Watson did something very good for many people. I'll respect that even where I think he's wrong about something, and even where I might dismiss all somebody's other opinions otherwise.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    19. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · · Score: 1

      I'm not clear on what you mean. Elaborate?

    20. Re:Watson is a scientist by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The pope is invited to parliaments and international diplomacy as if he was somehow especially smart or important.

      The pope is treated as having political importance not because of the efficacy of his theology but because he is the spiritual leader of 1+ billion Catholics, a large portion of which actually believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility.

    21. Re:Watson is a scientist by tibit · · Score: 1

      Let's get over the "poor Rosie", shall we? It's just stupid. Go read the 1968 Double Helix. Nobody fucked her over. She died from an illness, and Watson himself acknowledges that she was a solid experimentalist. She was also an occasional bitch :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    22. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 1

      No, the dogma I referred to has nothing to do with the scientific method, as it arrives at its own definite conclusion about the measured intelligence gap: that it's not genetically driven in any substantial way. It's dogmatic opinion and political correctness, not science.

    23. Re:Watson is a scientist by pla · · Score: 1

      PsySSA can probably name a few for you.

      Probably even a few with a bit more up-to-date methods than an Austrian pervert dead some 75 years now...

    24. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 1

      You are using a lot of words, but you haven't added anything to the conversation. Nobody denies that there is a unique bell curve for each population, or heck, that the bell curve moves over time with the Flynn effect and the like.

    25. Re:Watson is a scientist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      He appeared to be saying that the intellectual inferiority of blacks is shown by every black employee, which is very definitely untrue and definitely racist. The comment about Africa at least has a little justification.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Watson is a scientist by hey! · · Score: 1

      But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of;

      The first step in addressing the question scientifically is determining whether the question even makes sense. You have to *establish that the question is valid* before answering it.

      A hundred years ago scientists didn't know about DNA, couldn't characterize someone's genes. They went with what they could observe: skin color, hair, eye shape etc. And they came up with various compelling three race and five race schemes. But we aren't limited like they were. We can open up someone's genetic black box and characterize his heritage precisely. And when we did that all those compelling, intuitively obvious schemes fell apart.

      The problem with the question you pose is that it makes no sense to lump all Sub-Saharan Africans into one "race". Most of the genetic diversity of the human race is in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are ethnic groups in Africa that have more genetic diversity than all human populations originating outside Africa *combined*. So we can't answer the question you pose because it's very assumptions contradict the facts.

      If we were to divide humanity into five "great races", they'd probably end up being five *African* races, with the rest of the world tacked on in various ways. What's more it would turn out that there were *other* equally justifiable ways to construct five African races.

      Race is like constellations. Humans *will* see patterns in complex, random data. Just because Orion *looks* like an object doesn't mean that the stars in Orion are linked by some process. But boy is that pattern ever compelling.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:Watson is a scientist by bigtrike · · Score: 2

      The evidence is still "on the fence," so it's hard to draw any conclusions from. Even some studies among identical twins have shown a correlation below 0.5.

      I will agree that western designed tests show that westerners do well at western institutions. Nearly any time someone creates a metric of something as difficult to define as intelligence, they create it in such a way that they're the top scorers. I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.

    28. Re:Watson is a scientist by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.

      You can measure how well someone performs a task, and use that to predict how well they'll do similar tasks in the future. But what has that to do with intelligence? Why does having this particular skill indicate intelligence, rather than practice?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:Watson is a scientist by Smauler · · Score: 2

      I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.

      Are there any intelligence tests in which people from sub-saharan Africa do come out on top?

    30. Re:Watson is a scientist by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      I will agree that western designed tests show that westerners do well at western institutions. Nearly any time someone creates a metric of something as difficult to define as intelligence, they create it in such a way that they're the top scorers. I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.

      Except for some weird reason, those eastern orientals seem to do very well on these western tests of intelligence, even though they learn English as a second language! So much so that western universities are flooded with them and the administrators of the western universities are restricting oriental student numbers while handing out affirmative action slots to blacks.

      Doesn't it strike you as odd that first generation immigrant oriental children score higher on the English (verbal) portion of the SATs than African-American children, whose families have been speaking English natively for umpteen generations? Or were these tests created specifically to favor western AND eastern students while somehow excluding blacks? (that would be quite a trick)

    31. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. No, it isn't. I have read it. Yes, they did. She did indeed die of an illness, and Watson acknowledged many things. Regardless, being occasionally unpleasant in no way excuses being blatantly fucked over.

    32. Re:Watson is a scientist by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      genetics exemplified in racial groups

      And what, scientifically, is a "racial group"?

      I'd place it amongst such outdated concepts as "the aether" and "the harmony of the spheres". I didn't realise that anyone apart from neo-Nazi mass murderers thought it had any meaning any more.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is "her work was stolen, she was given no credit, and was patronized for years even after her death" not being fucked over? I mean right now, you're calling her "poor Rosie" instead of referring to her by her proper name. She was a scientist and a grown woman, don't refer to her by a childish nickname like that.

    34. Re:Watson is a scientist by Talderas · · Score: 1

      We've mapped the humane genome but we are nowhere close to understanding what all the individual genes are responsible for. There have been studies that have looked at the genetic differences between individuals and only about 85% of those genetic differences can be ascribed to the individual. The remaining 15% are genetic differences that are consistent among a population but vary between populations. We do know that at least some of those 15% of differences are going to be the physical traits that are indicators for how we socially describe race. What we don't know is how those 15% impact intelligence. They could be a direct impact on the floor or ceiling of intelligence or they might have a more nuanced impact by being genes that encourage behaviors that are counter-productive to building intelligence. They may impact nothing. However we don't know and I would agree that to say that these genes have no impact when we don't know what they do is a foolish statement to make.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    35. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 1

      What? Admitting you don't know the answer to that is racist!

    36. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Only to neo-Nazi mass murderers, huh? Thank you for sharing your fair, balanced, and nuanced opinion today.

  7. In other news Barack Obama has listed his medal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Opening bid - tree fiddy.

  8. In Soviet USA... by mamba69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet USA medal returns to you

  9. I choose Science by Rotten · · Score: 1

    I agree. Science and political correctness are not a good mix. I choose science.

    1. Re:I choose Science by michaelggreer · · Score: 1

      I choose science too! One of the great things about science is that it can quickly conclude hypotheses based on opinion and prejudice. Continuation of such conjectures after solid refutation strips them of any "scientific" inquiry and authority. They are exposed for the pure prejudice they are.

      And all members of a society are welcome to respond to such open and public prejudice in any reasonable manner they choose.

      As he is also a well-known sexist jerk and research thief, I choose to spurn him. Join me if you agree, don't if you do not.

  10. Brilliant by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    Now that Usmanov has set the precedent, he can expect a lot of other Nobel Prize winners coming forth to cash in. And when Feynman's heirs put forth his, Usmanov can buy it and keep it.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. What Goes Around... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    They should just let Netflix rent it out a month at a time..."Okay, who's next in the queue?"

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    1. Re:What Goes Around... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Netflix has queues? Can't you just press "play" to stream it?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  12. why should he have it by nimbius · · Score: 2

    If Watsons nobel was of so little significance to him that he hocked it for cash, it begs the question of why should he have received one in the first place. Personally the Nobel lost its purpose for me after Barack Obama received it. Nothing against the guy, but it seemed like a cheap and awkward gesture that completely misunderstood the point of american presidency in the context of our government.

    Watsons crime, namely that hes an old crumudgeon, isnt the issue for me. I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender, and try to view them as contextual expressions of a generation that was cheated into believing nonsense. I think part of the reason conferences and speaking arrangements were cancelled is because his appearance and opinions may inadvertently serve to validate his personal prejudices as a valid scientific point. My only axe to grind with him is that he seems to hog the spotlight and never really credit his peers like Francis Crick

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:why should he have it by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama's ludicrous Peace prize was more jarring to your conscience than Henry Kissinger's? Something isn't right here. You're either very young and unaware of the dubious history of this prize, or you have personal issues that cloud your judgment of the inanity of obviously stupid Nobel awards.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    2. Re:why should he have it by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It might have had something to do with the fact that he's old, destitute, and it's really cold in Chicago this time of year... Nobel prizes don't keep you warm.

    3. Re:why should he have it by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that it was awarded to Arafat but not to Gandhi.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    4. Re:why should he have it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It's probably worth noting that, aside from both being set up and funded by Alfred Nobel, there isn't necessarily much connection between a nobel in one field and one in another. Different judges, different selection processes, different external pressures, etc. Not really any reason to think differently of one because you think the laureates for another are badly chosen.

      Also, the history of the nobel peace prize is, unfortunately, littered with 'statesmen', which frequently means that winners have more blood on their hands than your average SuperMax inmate. If anything, it would have been more appropriate to award Obama after he'd made clear that a unilateral campaign of drone strikes and a 'war on terror' of unlimited scope and duration were just peachy keen with him, rather than before he'd had a chance to really get into stride.

      As for Watson, he seems to have mistaken being treated like a slightly embarrassing curmudgeon whose most productive years as a scientist are well behind him with being actively persecuted. I can't really blame him for acting a bit disappointed at the feeling of having come down in the world; but it's pretty hard to imagine how absurdly high-powered his later career would have had to have been to not be a letdown after his early work, and it wasn't particularly. His old-age PR does seem somewhat worse than some other scientific luminaries who have just quietly faded away; but even the ones that age into avuncular and eventually grandfatherly figures still tend to be remembered for the science they did when they were substantially younger, with their later output varying between 'respectable' and 'more or less retirement'.

    5. Re:why should he have it by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      Shimon Peres and Arafat should have split an award. They both (ultimately) worked towards peace in a situation where peace was (and remains) a pipe dream.

      Gandhi clearly should have gotten a peace prize.

      This underscores the fact that there is a flaw in the decision process.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    6. Re:why should he have it by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You really weren't paying attention if Obama was the final nail. The peace prize is irrelevant when working out the worth of the actual ones for science fields.

      And yes, the DNA double helix - what a load of useless crap nothing came of that!

    7. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with GP. Kissinger was at least trying to bring peace to the Middle East.

      Obama? At the time the prize was announced he had done nothing.

    8. Re:why should he have it by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Watsons crime, namely that hes an old crumudgeon, isnt the issue for me. I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender, and try to view them as contextual expressions of a generation that was cheated into believing nonsense.

      That's pretty much the same thing the old curmudgeons say about you, you know?

    9. Re:why should he have it by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      It's all about managing expectations. Everyone knew Kissinger was a bastard already.

    10. Re:why should he have it by quenda · · Score: 1

      Personally the Nobel lost its purpose for me after Barack Obama received it.

      The Nobel peace prize has always been different - very political.
      The amazing thing is that you still respected it before Obama's award (AKA the inaugural not-being GW Bush award).
      Past winners include Yasser Arafat (peace in Palestine) and Henry Kissinger (Vietnam war).

      The Stockholm science prizes are not the same.

    11. Re:why should he have it by Calavar · · Score: 1

      Middle East? What in the world are you talking about? Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for the American withdrawal from Vietnam. (And ostensibly for brokering peace between North and South Vietnam, but we all know how long that lasted.)

      Keep in mind that in 1970, Kissinger was the one who pushed for expanding the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia. Around the same time, he was also working with the CIA to try to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile. In 1971, he had the US throw its support behind the Pakistani government, even after a US diplomat in Pakistan said that the government engaging in widespread genocide of its own citizens.

      Did I think Obama deserve the Peace Prize? Probably not. But at least the committee didn't decide to give it to him while knowing that he was complicit in genocide and active in coup d'etats.

  13. Seems like a good guy.. by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2

    He was one of the least hurt by the sanctions regarding the Ukraine, seems like he cares... wonder how taxation on this is going to play out....

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    1. Re:Seems like a good guy.. by xfizik · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously bringing up Ukraine in this topic?

  14. Profit!! by Rogue974 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have we finally found what the ultimate Step #3 is?!?!?

    Step 1: Win Nobel Prize
    Step 2: Go Broke
    Step 3: Sell Nobel Prize medal
    Step 4: Profit
    Step 5: After medal is returned, wait an acceptable time and return to Step 1!!!

    1. Re:Profit!! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      If you achieve Step 2 while pulling $350k/year, you may not stay out of penury all that long after Step 4, so hopefully 'an acceptable time' is relatively short.

    2. Re:Profit!! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it doesn't really seem like he was broke unless he had a very expensive coke habit or something.

      it was done mainly to redeem himself or make himself relevant again, by getting some money to donate.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  15. Taxes by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    Can't help but to wonder about the tax consequences of this both to Watson and all Nobel prize winners.

    1. Re:Taxes by pla · · Score: 1

      Can't help but to wonder about the tax consequences of this both to Watson and all Nobel prize winners.

      The US already treats prestigious awards (Nobels, Olympics, etc) as taxable income.

      Watson hocking his medal doesn't change much. And depending on how much of it he actually donated, he may have no actual taxable liability as a result of the sale.

    2. Re:Taxes by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Depending on how it is taxed when being returned (as a gift), vs. when it was originally awarded (as an award), he may actually end up owing MORE taxes.

      For example, if the original award was estimated to be worth $1 million, he will have "donated" $1 million worth of assets, however it is now worth $4.7 million, which means he will have received $4.7 million in "gift income" that he has to pay taxes on.

      This doesn't even take into account the possible difference in tax rates between gifts and awards.

  16. Good use of excessive wealth by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    Human achievements are not always very well enumerated in a paycheck or in business sales revenue.
    Its good when the folks with piles of cash can pay it out to others who have done great things. The money seems to generate so much attention that it illuminates the recipient's good work. I humbly request piles and piles of cash so I could give it away to some peeps, that full time.

  17. You mean by xfizik · · Score: 1

    not all Russians are bad people?

  18. Re:In other news Barack Obama has listed his medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe Kissinger can list his too. Maybe a Cambodian will buy it.

  19. One of the statements he made on the matter by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Informative

    Evaluate for yourself:

      [Watson] said 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”

    One thing I know about IQ tests in my experience is that they seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by quenda · · Score: 2

      One thing I know about IQ tests in my experience is that they seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly.

      Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, the tests could just be biased towards people with a high IQ? (Which may correlate to the other factors you mentioned)

      The fact is that IQ tests are a better predictor of many things than educational history or free time. This make it scientifically valid.

    2. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that IQ tests are biased towards intelligent people? Damn

      *sigh*

      If you give the same intelligence test to (1) a wealthy, highly educated person from a supportive family and (2) the illiterate oldest child in a group of subsistence farmers you had better have a good way of discounting the cultural and developmental factors involved if you claim to be measuring pure intelligence.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      ... If you give the same intelligence test to (1) a wealthy, highly educated person from a supportive family and (2) the illiterate oldest child in a group of subsistence farmers ...

      ... how about (3) a penny-less refugee from China landed in USA in his mid-teens, with nothing but the cloth he was wearing?

      I know you gonna launch the Political Correctness thing but if I, a refugee from China, who when arrived at the U. S. of A. can't converse with anybody with any language except Mandarin, can make it, don't anyone tells me that a child of a farmer can't

      I am sick and tired of your kind of PC creeps. What you guys are doing are actually hurting the underprivileged more than helping them

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    4. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by samwichse · · Score: 1

      If you'd been given a standardized IQ test in English how well would you have scored then?

      It's almost impossible to separate education/background from intelligence in these tests, which is the whole point of this thread. And his point was that the illiterate oldest child of subsistence farmers probably IS just as intelligent, and capable of "making it," given the opportunity.

      Sam

  20. Also owns Arsenal by jslaff · · Score: 1

    Usmanov is also a large shareholder in Arsenal, the north London soccer/football team I support. For $4.7 million we could have gotten some needed defensive coverage at the back.

  21. Re:Is he a good person? by xfizik · · Score: 1

    It's all relative.

  22. Re:Russia, LOL by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, Obama. We get it. You're mad at Putin for not handing over the guy who humiliated and exposed you, Snowden. You don't need to spam your butthurt everywhere.

    I realize that as nerds we tend to live in our own little bubbles and magnify the importance of nerdy things, but on the list of grievances the US (and Ukraine, and the EU) have against Russia, Snowden is pretty far down.

  23. Re:How does anyknow know it's not fake? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    But he's Uzbeg

  24. Re:Russia, LOL by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Ok, Obama. We get it. You're mad at Putin for not handing over the guy who humiliated and exposed you, Snowden. You don't need to spam your butthurt everywhere.

    I would guess that he would have been more butthurt about Putin one upping him in the posing with an animal photo department.

    Obama poses with a poodle, and Putin is really putin on the ritz by posing with a leopard (can't recall if it was an ordinary leopard or a snow leopard though).

    That said, I would kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. :D

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  25. Re:Russia, LOL by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 3

    Like inciting a civil war in Libya then bombing it back into the stone age. Libya used to be a pretty good country to live in before the NATO "intervention" to stop the Libyan government from fighting extremist terrorists, oops sorry, "Freedom fighters", funded by the west and bolstering their numbers with mercenaries. The illegal invasion of Iraq also comes to mind, the US president didn't even bother asking congress to go to war, just brought down 2 towers and no one asked any questions. Why the fvck invade Iraq again? Bin Laden wasn't even in the country?

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  26. Re:Russia, LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, God damn Russia for protecting their interests after the US and EU were caught red-handed orchestrating a violent revolution which removed the democratically elected pro-Russian leader!

  27. Re:See even russian's by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    even russian's - subhuman as they are - know that nigger's are shit and are willing to stand up for some body that calls it as it is.

    Well, 'shit' or not, I'm sure most "russian's" and "nigger's" have a considerably better handle on apostrophe use than yourself, you son of a greengrocer you.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?