Is James Watson Senile Or Just Stupid?
He’s a Nobel laureate. He claims to have had the idea that led to the discovery of the three-dimensional structure of DNA; one of the most important scientific discoveries of the last century. However, he’s now 79 years old, and the evidence suggests that, whatever level of intelligence he may have once had, he has now lost his powers of reason.
In an article in the UK’s Sunday Times, Watson is quoted as saying,
(I am) inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa… all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.
Oh, really? What “tests” are those? The Sunday Times doesn’t tell us the answer; but it does tell us about some more “evidence” that Watson uses to support his ridiculous claims. Countering assertions that black people and white people have equal intelligence, Watson says:
People who have to deal with black employees find this not true
He recommends taking care when making decisions to promote black people in their jobs! All this would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. Someone needs to tell Watons to shut up - he’s well on the way to completely destroying his reputation; and intelligent people aren’t interested in listening to his idiotic racist views. Why are the views idiotic? Because it’s blindingly obvious to anyone that cares to look into the subject that the level of “intelligence” any individual possesses is dominated by environmental, rather than genetic factors.
So, is Watons going senile? Or is he just a bit thick? Well, I’ve met a few Nobel Laureates when they were aged in their seventies; and without exception, I’ve found them to be pretty damn sharp and on-the-ball. That’s not a surprise - people who keep their minds engaged in intellectual pursuits tend not lose their critical faculties as they enter into old age (unless they get ill). So, on balance, my guess is that Watson is not senile: rather, my guess is that he’s just stupid…and that he’s always been stupid. Perhaps they should take the Noble prize back - he doesn’t seem a particularly worthy recipient…
Asam Bashir wrote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8220394453782681101&q=authors%40google&pl=true
Some interesting questions where proposed to him at the end of his talk at Google.
It’s interesting that he seemed to have picked up ideas on Autism - but again this is a very controversial topic, even in Cambridge. If you look at the difference between treatment given to Autistic spectrum sufferers compared to say Bipolar or Schizophrenic, there is an inherent difference in attitude because of the prevalence of Autism within offspring of academic staff of certain racial groups..
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 5:29 pm ¶
Nicole wrote:
Well, if he’s not senile, then, he must be stupid. I wonder how he’s going to get along in society now that he’s black?
He is just absolutely ridiculous!
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 6:15 pm ¶
Ray wrote:
There may well be a genetic component to intellegence. To dismiss the notion out of hand show bias. Science doesn’t always give us the answers we want or expect. How can we have an honest, scientific debate on the issue if it so politically-charged? If an individual can have a genetic disposition to be fat, tall, prone to substance abuse, or schizophrenic, then so too could the components that make up higher brain function, i.e intellegence. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 4:04 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
I think the problem is the defination of certain states of mind, disorders like Autism and Schizophrenia are not single gene, single diseases, more over they are a spectrum of mind states which can and do overlap. Many cases of autism and schizophrenia show identical symtoms and the label given depends on the shrink involved or motives. For an academic parent they might prefer a autistic label rather then a schizophrenic label since the former opens doors to special access schools and places. There is a huge danger here when coupled to false and perceived racial origins for these diseases - it is fundamentally wrong since modern research is showing that many factors are involved in the process.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 5:26 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
And what is inteligence at the end of the day? The abilty for memory? mathematical skills? The ability for art? Human progress and evolution has made use of all of these skills to get to where it is today, it’s through the diversity of mind states that mankind has been able to progress, so saying that one skill set is more valuable then another is not only misleading, but also very dangerous….
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 5:34 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
Actually, having watched this process in two grandparents, I would assert he is almost certainly in the early stages of senility. All of the quotes from people who have known him awhile seem to say “I have no idea where these ideas are coming from, I’ve never heard him say anything like this.” If he’d been a more careful, quieter bigot all along, then I’d vote with stupid. But sudden shifts into inappropriate behavior or opinions is textbook early dementia/senility.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 6:12 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Ray said,
There may be a genetic component to intelligence
Of course. As I said, however, the evidence suggests that environmental factors are massively dominant. In any case, I’d suggest anyone wanting to understand intelligence should focus first on characterising the phenotype. As Asam rightly points out, there’s huge amounts still to do in there.
Ray continued,
How can we have an honest, scientific debate on the issue if it so politically-charged?
Well, Watson is the one that brought the level of debate down with his idiotic, dishonest, anti-scientific comments. He’s trying to backtrack from these now; I think it’s a bit late for that. His reputation is now badly damaged.
Additionally, as Asam alluded to in his comments, considering only the scientific aspects of this is not enough - you have to also consider social, ethical and political aspects of the debate too. Something that Waton seems incapable of doing.
@Sarah
You might well be right. Of course, this isn’t the first time Watson has expressed bigotted views e.g. his comments about diagnostics for homosexuality in unborn babies that suggest he wants to rid the world of gay people. So, while he may be going senile, I suspect also that he just isn’t that bright.
Posted 20 Oct 2007 at 9:52 am ¶
Yvonne wrote:
Hi,
Sarah is right. I have attended a few speeches given by Watson, and there was one in particular that he gave about 6 years ago, where he literally endorsed the work of Hitler - that included sterilising Jewish women with a view of Hitler generating a “superior race” of people with blonde hair and blue eyes in Germany. It was a horrible experience to listen to him. This speech was given to an audience of several hundred at a very famous UK genome campus. I could not stay for the whole talk as I had to leave after the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. After this I made a mental note not to attend anymore speeches given by this man. I am very pleased that it has caught the attention of the media and that he has been asked to stop giving these types of speeches.
Africa’s problems are complex but they are not due to genetics. Many African countries consist of populations of people that are from different tribes and each triobe speaks a different language. Eg Sierra Leone a small West African country with a population of about 4 million, over ten tribes each tribe speaking a different language. Who is going to govern who? Africa has experienced apartheid up until quite recently, the slave trade was abolished only 200 years ago, Many African countries are recovering from colonisation. And Ghana has been an excellent example under Jerry Rawlings of how an African country can be very progressive.
In terms of genetics, Africans have the most biological variation than any other race on the planet - this is a measurable scientific fact. If this type of information if used in a scientific context ie comparing the genetic make-up between various races and various individuals we would be able to know how genetic variation in the human population correlates with biology. With useful clinical applications:-a view to finding better treatments and lifestyles for people with different biology. With the human genome out for some time now- I think Watson, being such a famous scientist and having studied and worked in very reputable research organisations, should have a much more responsible role in society than saying black people should not be given jobs with responsibility. Watson living in US with the likes of the Oprah Winfrey - one the richest women in the world (a self made billionaire), Condleezza Rice, Kofi Annan. What colour are these people? How much responsibilty do they have in their jobs? I think Watson is huge EMBARASSMENT to science and to the research establishments that he is currently linked with.
Posted 21 Oct 2007 at 5:33 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Only recent lecture I’ve heard of his was the one he did at Google in 2006 (link above) you can get a bit of an idea of his mindstate from the way he answers the questions, almost measure the time it takes for him to go through his memory banks.
I am very surprised to hear of the contents of the speach made at the genome campus, in 2001? If he really said all that why wasn’t a big fuss made then and there, why has it taken so long?
Any archives of that lecture?
Posted 21 Oct 2007 at 8:23 pm ¶
simon wrote:
I’m not at all surprised that people didn’t kick up a fuss - my guess is that most people there would be too afraid to step out of line and criticize a Nobel Laureate.
Posted 21 Oct 2007 at 8:35 pm ¶
Annie Gabston-Howell wrote:
I think Simon, in post #10, hits the nail on the head. If you’re rich enough, famous enough, smart enough, or important enough, you can say almost anything without direct negative feed back. Reading up on Watson has convinced me that what he said wouldn’t actually have surprised his close associates in any fashion other than that he was stupid enough to say it to a reporter and on the record.
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 4:55 pm ¶