What are some great scientists who were ruined by politics?

You know who else makes unsubstantiated claims? Anti-vaxxers, alternative medicine supporters and so on... Know what they have in common? Detrimental effect on society. Without any evidence, that is. You know, like the witch hunts? I wonder if you're so lenient with them as well.

Nobody says his contribution wasn't great, but he doesn't get a free ride on pseudoscience claims. And yes, hurt feelings constitute a detrimental effect on society, when the claims have no basis.

Actually his claim is substantiated, I looked up what he said. See: Yup another witchhunt over someone saying the facts people don' like.

This lowkey is just a thread to discuss his beliefs and not in anyway looking to talk about scientist ruined by politics.

Also I never said he should have a freeride, had his claim been bullshit he should've been challenged on it. Not run out.

edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/25/watson.resigns/index.html
>He also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

lol, come on man,at least do through research before you post twice. Anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute science.

>biologist
>scientist

>"people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."
Are you really too stupid to see how this is unsubstantiated? This isn't a comment about Africa. Congratulations on pulling up the exact line that made people realize he's a fucking moron as "defense".

He's right though, they didn't evolve identically, hence why people around the world look different. Again had he said their intelligence was the result of genetics outright you'd have a point except for the witchhunt. I mean it's just as unsubstantiated at this point to say this is entirely the result of environment. Yet people are praised for that claim.

William Shockley did it first. He was responsible for The transistor and silicon valley as a consequence but he decided to engage in wrongthink and paid dearly.

>Shockley died in 1989 of prostate cancer at age 79.[45] By the time of his death he was almost completely estranged from most of his friends and family, except his second wife, the former Emmy Lanning (1913–2007). His children are reported to have learned of his death only through the print media.[46] Dr. Shockley is interred at Alta Mesa Memorial Park in Palo Alto, California.

That quote does NOT imply around the world. Stop reading only what you want to.

It's an offhand quote. Besides you seem to be perfectly ok with the claim we're all identical despite it being unsubstantiated.

...Read who I replied to again and why. Either you misunderstood or this is bad bait.

The analogy I was making was that just like witch hunts, there is no scientific claim here. There is nothing to challenge. He didn't publish a paper, he said something a politician would say. That's what an unsubstantiated claim is.

What do you think he was implying by saying that blacks evolved separately and that the blacks he met are dumb?

>I mean it's just as unsubstantiated at this point to say this is entirely the result of environment. Yet people are praised for that claim.
That doesn't that the contrarian claim to what (blacks r genetically dumb) is valid in any way. Doubting it's all environment is valid, since we don't really know. Taking a racist claim is unsubstantiated and unscientific.

>It's an offhand quote.
That is very hard to misinterpret. It's talking about his personal "experience" with black employees. Stop reading only what you want to.

> Besides you seem to be perfectly ok with the claim we're all identical
Rhetoric. Go fuck yourself, I've said nothing of the sort.

>That doesn't that the contrarian claim to what (blacks r genetically dumb) is valid in any way.
Had an aneurysm. Meant to say that the /pol/ack contrarianism to SJWs doesn't make their views valid. The reality is that we don't know the ratio of the extent genetics and environment play in the formation of intelligence.

There is no scientific claim we all evolved identically intellectually yet that is parroted and praised everywhere. So if the issue is a claim being unsubstantiated then well both camps are guilty of this.

And that important to recognize. Being politically correct is only good for virtue signalling and not do-gooding. They clearly learn differently and that will need to be incorporated to actually help.

Fair enough, and my apologies. I should've said this society is perfectly ok with that pseudoscience. That's my issue with this we witchhunt a noble laureate for an offhand unsubstantiated claim while we let this narrative run wild as fact.

Are you that fucking daft? How many times do I need to emphasize this particular comment makes no sense if you assume he was talking about Africa. You are focusing on other things he said that no one is arguing.

Were on the same page, I wish society was though.

Something to keep in mind though. A purely objective analysis of the situation, if you will. Society judges things based on consequences. You have 2 unsubstantiated, unscientific claims. When one spreads, you have a large percentage of the population being singled out, at unrest, suffering from discrimination and being looked down upon while bringing back memories of a genocidal dictator that wrought unimaginable human suffering and brought a continent to ruin. Very negative for society.

The other unsubstantiated belief, when spread, will cause a percentage of /pol/acks and stormfags very upset, and the rest mostly happy. Overall highly positive. Is it any wonder why one has prevailed and the other hasn't? Until scientific facts (in the far future, mind you) emerge that show notable differences between races, nothing will change.

Its not that they can't be shown as much as they are not allowed to be since academia is coopted by agenda-ists

Yeah, but couldn't we point out the fact that we're dealing with averages either way? Thus people should be treated as individuals rather than members of groups. I think we should drive that point more than the unsubstantiated claim. The unsubstantiated claim is not without its drawbacks, since now people look at outcome stats and say "damn those evil white male oppressors" so it's not like it's harmless. I want real liberalism back. ;_;

>hack who read off data
Linus Pauling had already made the model Crick and Watson made. Both were wrong. It was Franklin pointing out the sugar phosphate backbones had to be outside that made the difference.

He sold off his Nobel prize because he wanted to buy a fucking painting. That guy is a colossal ass.

>On December 23, 1947, Bardeen and Brattain—working without Shockley—succeeded in creating a point-contact transistor that achieved amplification.
>Shockley took the lion's share of the credit in public for the invention of transistor, which led to a deterioration of Bardeen's relationship with Shockley.
Shockley was a fucking crook who took credit for other people's work. He was the corporate guy. It's no wonder no one liked him.

>it's a "Rosalind actually did it! She totally didn't try to piggyback and take credit for Watson and Crick's work how could she that's misoynist!" maymay episode

Big surprise that a eugenics nut who donated his sperm to preserve "humanity's best" was a dishonest piece of shit.

>He sold off his Nobel prize because he wanted to get attention.
Fixed, but agreed.

Intelligence metrics are affected by wealth, disease, education, social infrastructure, and dozens of other variables. There's a huge difference between saying 'people in Africa score lower on an IQ test' versus 'people in Africa are less intelligent'.

Plenty of people have written about IQ and educational disparities in Africa before, without major consequence. Watson took heat because he said something extremely presumptive and unscientific, not because SJWs wanted to witch-hunt him for showing facts.

Low results are just as much a cause of those influences as they are outcome. Its a feedback loop.

The tests are pretty well controlled now adays. They're not about english vocabulary any more. They're about pattern recognition and shit so it's highly independent of culture. The administrator is often of the same culture or as close as possible, they feed them breakfast/lunch.

There ARE smart blacks in the test group, and they test very similar to smart whites.

In large groups, like races, it's very consistent with their societal outcomes and criminality. eg, asians and jews are paid more than white son average, and have a higher IQ, whites more than hispanics, hispanics more than african-americans... it seems to be as heritable as height, which we also clearly see a spread of in the races, that's not just 'disease and diet'

Africa's problem isn't even about intelligence though, corruption and subsidization basically neuters most of the population's potential.

When given the chance they can actually compete.

Take into consideration this,

iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#

Norway's IQ average is 100
Belgium's IQ average is 99
Greece's IQ average is 92
Nigeria's IQ average is 84

knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-charts

Nigeria actually has a higher GDP than Greece, Belgium and Norway despite having a lower IQ and not being apart of the European Union.

Nigeria with lower living quality, intelligence and education still does better than these European countries economically. This is on top of the fact that Nigeria is a sub-saharan african nation and does better than even South Africa which is economically vanguarded by Europeans.

Watson needs to shut the fuck up about social polices because Nigeria clearly proves high intelligence is not as important as he insist it is.

IQ tests are definitely overrated, I have yet to hear of someone around the 200 mark who isn't some useless stuck-up elitist, and it seems that in most of the cases where someone with a high IQ has ended up being highly beneficial to science, that's just their estimated IQ; in other words, they decided "This person made great contributions, therefore they must have an extremely high IQ".

IQ seems to be more about how quickly you can learn than the ability to apply your knowledge in the way that would be considered intelligence.

user what have I told you about using facts and rational thoughts when it's clear that black people are just stupid because that's just how they are.

>The tests are pretty well controlled now adays

I took an actual, honest-to-god IQ test administered by a psychiatrist a couple of years back. One of the questions was, "What's the capital of Greece?". Purely anecdotal, but plenty of these tests are not 'well controlled'.

>They're about pattern recognition and shit so it's highly independent of culture.

Which is as much to do with upbringing and education as anything. Exercising your brain as a young child means that you've got the synaptic connections to find those kinds of patterns. Yet people pretend like the only difference between a poor African kid and a middle-class white kid is genetics.

>it seems to be as heritable as height, which we also clearly see a spread of in the races

On the same note, the kids of rich people tend to grow up rich too. I suppose having money is a genetic trait as well, yes?

>Nigeria actually has a higher GDP than Greece, Belgium and Norway despite having a lower IQ and not being apart of the European Union.

I'm sorry, I'm normally kinder about this, but you basically have no data analysis skills when it comes to sociological statistics. GDP is not a strong indicator of quality of life. GDP per capita is. Norway's GDP per capita is 100k, while Nigeria's is 3k.

>Linus Pauling had already made the model Crick and Watson made.

I don't believe this is true.
I believe Pauling's model was a triple helix if I remember correctly.

>Nigeria actually has a higher GDP than Greece, Belgium and Norway despite having a lower IQ and not being apart of the European Union.

Nigeria population: 181 million
Nigeria GDP: 1.1 trillion USD

Norway population: 5.2 million
Norway GDP: 352 million USD

Belgium population: 11 million
Belgium GDP: 494 million USD

>Watson needs to shut the fuck up about social polices because Nigeria clearly proves high intelligence is not as important as he
insist it is.

No, you need to shut the fuck up because you have no idea what you are talking about.

>user
>not gay

He's some hack who got lucky with crick on what happened to be one of the biggest breakthroughs ever. The crystallography wasn't done by him, even the analysis allegedly wasn't done by him. I heard tell they were scratching their heads over the crystallography results until some dude on his lunch break looked at it and said "oh hey, that looks like a double helix".

The worlds best chemist at the time, Linus Pauling, would have made it his 3rd Nobel if he had been able to get back to the UK to see the results. Instead there was something fucked with his flight or something. It was literally a fluke in the final stretch of discovery and that's why you have such a quack with such weight behind what he says. That's why you have such controversy over them taking all the fucking credit too.

>I heard tell they were scratching their heads over the crystallography results

You heard wrong.

I LIKE TO YELL AT BLACK PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET XD

I trip over myself to defend black people on the interwebs to sooth my guilt over my original privilege XDDDDD

>criticizing anecdotal evidence with an anecdote

you should look up stupid in the dictionary

i epic /v/ meme on a science board because i'm a neo-millennial faggot fuckboy and a fat tumblrmutant memegendered memesexual abomination from australia sucking faggot cock for jew doctor money XDD

He's right, we aren't all magically equal.

Would've been smarter to leave out the part about people of recent African descent.

> memegendered
> memesexual
i have a new identity >:D

>current year
>not being memekin

>Would've been smarter to leave out the part about people of recent African descent.
Probably because that's the part that's baseless and embarrassing for a scientist to proclaim.

It's past your bedtime, kid.

don't you have some things to arrange in order of size?

What is there to be embarrassed about ?

A scientist being swayed by personal bias and making a baseless unscientific statement is embarrassing. It brings into question their approach towards the rest of science, and undermines the effort they've put into appearing professional.

Where did I claim that my evidence wasn't anecdotal? I'm pretty sure that I even said that I was speaking from personal experience.

My personal experience is relevant because he claimed that these tests are well-controlled. I provided one specific counter-example, which is enough to show that at least some of the tests aren't well-controlled. Furthermore, the test I took is probably produced by one company that administers countless other tests, meaning that my experiences likely reflect those of thousands, if not millions, of other people. If one person notices a glaring mistake on the SAT, chances are it applies to way more people than just him.

>you should look up stupid in the dictionary

You don't deserve a well-thought-out response. Or, in your language: suck my dick.

> I'm sorry, I'm normally kinder about this, but you basically have no data analysis skills when it comes to sociological statistics. GDP is not a strong indicator of quality of life. GDP per capita is.

user I'm sorry to say this to you but you have shit reading comprehension.

I said in my post that,

>Nigeria with lower living quality, intelligence and education still does better than these European countries economically.

Please remember to read posts carefully before responding and making yourself look like an idiot.

>bringing up population

Germany, population 81.4 million
Brazil, population 205.3 million

Germany,
$3.8 Trillion GDP ppp
$3.3 Trillion GDP nominal

Brazil,
$3.2 Trillion GDP ppp
$1.5 Trillion GDP nominal

Of course you choose to ignore these stats because it makes your retort irrelevant. But keep fighting the shitty fight philistine.

Ted Kaczynski

Same user as , just to make sure you don't weasel your way out of this argument.

Qatar, population 2.5 million
Singapore, population 5.5 million
Sudan, population 40.2 million
Ethiopia, population 99.4 million

Singapore,
$452.6 billion GDP ppp
$308 billion GDP nominal
Qatar,
$428.4 billion GDP ppp
$421.9 billion GDP nominal

Sudan,
$179.5 billion GDP ppp
$84.3 billion GDP nominal

Ethiopia,
$170.4 billion GDP ppp
$67.4 billion GDP nominal

Singapore, IQ average 108
Qatar, IQ average 78

iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#

"Despite having a difference of TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS both still roughly have the same GDP"

I want you and your ilk to know how much your arguments and retorts are bad. I want you and your ilk to understand how foolish you are.

You can't use any one factor to quantify economic success it is a multi-variable system.

>it's another /pol/ raids Veeky Forums thread

gotta love these ones

People with IQ 150+ are so rare, that it doesn't really matter if you are 150 or 250. The tests lose all the accuracy at this point and the results doesn't really make any sense.
The reason you think people with high IQ are useless stuck-up elitist is because only this kind of people shove their score into other people's throat.
If you see someone being successful(but not like Notch or Zuckberg who were just lucky, but people who genuinely build their success on their hard work and motivation), very quick to learn new skills and knowledge, have large variety of skills and in general appear to be inteligent, you can be pretty sure his IQ is around 130 or something. Most people don't even know their IQ, because there is no real point, except for stroking your ego.

New poster, of course the population matters you retard, if you have one person making one million dollars vs a million people making a dollar each the one guy is clearly richer. Population matters dipshit.

You are yourself avoiding the question. Obviously, it is unlikely and beside the point to assume that IQ alone must account for the plurality of variance on a measure of economic outcome. All that must be demonstrated is the IQ captures some predictively useful component of outcome variance in conjunction with other covariates. If it is really useful, we might expect to see it more heavily weighted in a model explaining economic outcomes. It appears you think that unlikely.

The fact remains that g factor (the first principle component of multiple, individually valid tests of intelligence) routinely accounts for ~16% of variance in outcome measures of education and work performance even in ethnically mixed samples from first world countries. Compared to other plausible and tested predictors, this is an orders of magnitude increase in variance explained.

Furthermore, independent of an ethnic group's performance on certain IQ tests as a whole, individual members' scores appear to be as valid as those of whites as predictors of educational and professional success.

Test bias certainly exists and can be limitedly corrected for, but if at a certain point "bias" simply means a group is systematically deficient in skills the test intends to assess, it is not a bias, it is an accurate representation of a systemic, group wide deficit. Such is what one sees looking at "culture fair" tests of IQ assessing black Africans using only nonverbal intelligence measures. At some point, even after methodically controlling for bias, one must ask if it is even plausible that such a factor could account for these individuals scoring on average nearly two standard deviations below the Caucasian mean.

Watson's response was one of an elder statesman of biology fumbling with psychometric issues slightly beyond his wheelhouse. His grasp of the issue is imperfect and blunt, but he is not explicitly wrong.

And where in my post did I state population didn't matter?

The point I'm making which you seem to be missing is that no one factor constitutes economic success. The fact you still seem to miss this shows your poor reading comprehension and understanding of the topic at hand.

You did a sarcastic arrow implying that you shouldn't bring up population implying that it didn't matter... do you have Alzheimer's?

I believe you may be replying to the wrong post user.

The green text arrow was brought up to address the implication that a population's "head count" mattered not the integrity of the population's individuals it consisted of.

Seriously follow the thread and their corresponding post.

Yes, the head count matters because the less people there are, the richer each person is on average.

This really isn't true, unfortunately, at least for mathematical ability. One of the most interesting ongoing studies of the last 40 years is the the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which has found differences in professional, financial, and career outcomes even amongst people ranging from the 99th to 99.99th percentile of performance on an early administration of the SAT math section at age 13. Obviously, scores on this test correlate very highly with IQ.

Also, assuming intelligence is normally distributed with a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100 (this is a common convention for modern tests such as the WAIS), the likelihood of having an IQ 150 or greater is about 4.3 in 10,000. Assuming the population of this planet is about 7.125 billion, that means about 3.06 million people currently alive have an intelligence in excess of 150. That is equivalent to the current population size of Mongolia. I'd hardly say that's trivial. Maybe rare in relative terms, but certainly not trivial.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoichi_Sakata
>apply Marxist dialectic materialism to physics
>holy shit precursor to quark theory

In his book "The Evidence for the Top Quark", by Kent W. Staley (Cambridge 2004), Staley says: "... some japanese physicists felt strongly that Western physicists, especially in the United States, systematically ignored their work. ...". Kobayashi and Maskawa were connected with the Japanese physicist Sakata and the Nagoya group of physicists. Sakata used Lenin's doctrine of inexhaustibility to see that protons and neutrons were not point particles, but were composite, and, further, Sakata used Lenin's doctrine to see that quantum physics should be non-local ( in line with Bohm, who has since the 1950s been an outcast from the Oppenheimer-type physics establishment ). It is my opinion that the failure of the Nobel committees to recognize Kobayashi and Maskawa may be related to the facts that their work was closely related to that of the Nagoya group (they both got their Ph.D.'s at Nagoya) and that the fundamental philosophy of the Nagoya group was Dialectical Materialism.

I replied to whom I intended to reply. The first paragraph more pertains to the post I linked. The rest is stuff applicable to the thread at large that came to mind.

Kek. Alan Sokal would have had a fun time trolling their a$$e$.

Alan Sokal is a lefty.
>But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class.
He went to a Nicaraguan university to teach physics while it was ruled by Sandinistas.

Maskawa and Kobayashi eventually did get a Nobel prize

Except when you compare U.S. to Japan.
Except when you compare U.K. to Greece.
Except when you compare Brazil to Peru.
Except when you compare South Africa to Egypt.

I could go on but you get the picture, such a metric does not indicate probable average.

He was also fond of trolling weird postmodern types who tried to turn quantum physics into some kind of cargo cult.

I guess it's funny that when you do the opposite and give physicists humanities literature, something productive actually comes out instead of schizophrenic drivel.

Alright then,

>You are yourself avoiding the question. Obviously, it is unlikely and beside the point to assume that IQ alone must account for the plurality of variance on a measure of economic outcome.

Which is what I've been stating in this thread, you can't use intelligence or any one factor to quantify economic success.

>All that must be demonstrated is the IQ captures some predictively useful component of outcome variance in conjunction with other covariates. If it is really useful, we might expect to see it more heavily weighted in a model explaining economic outcomes. It appears you think that unlikely.

Yes, I believe unlikely because we are talking about entire countries where geopolitical positioning, resources, trading relations matter more than IQ. North Korea for example by proxy of being extremely genetically related to South Korea proves that IQ predictive power does not work when factors such as political policies are involved. Same goes for countries like Greece where according to their IQ average they SHOULD be doing better.

> Watson's response was one of an elder statesman of biology fumbling with psychometric issues slightly beyond his wheelhouse. His grasp of the issue is imperfect and blunt, but he is not explicitly wrong.

He made a mistake unbefitting of a person his of position and stature.

I won't damn the man to hell for his comments but it is clear he chose to actively speak about a topic to which he invested little research on.

If he wants to shit on africans because of low intelligence, fine have at it. But he shouldn't speak on the inability to respond to social polices when a country like Nigeria is proving him otherwise.

I meant to reply to your post with , my apologies.

Interesting, thanks for info. I guessed it'll be much smaller group without doing actual calculations.
Still your data shows differences for people within top 1%. People with IQ 150+ are top 0.043% and this is significantly smaller group.

That's for clearing that up for me bud

>Nigeria with lower living quality, intelligence and education still does better than these European countries economically.

Except overall economic activity means nothing when it doesn't equate to more wealth per person. We're talking about education and living standards here, which relate roughly to how much money each person receives out of the economic pie. Or in other words, the GDP per capita.

Your country might export a lot of oil, but if it can't adequately support its population, is it really 'doing better' than a country like Norway? What's your argument here? That being poor with a lot of other people should make Nigerians smarter than everyone else?

>The point I'm making which you seem to be missing is that no one factor constitutes economic success.

So you're saying that no single factor constitutes economic success, yet you then proceed to hyper-focus on nominal GDP like a high school economics student?

EVERY
SINGLE
FUCKING
ONE

It's a proven fact that DNA was discovered by Rosalind Franklin and Watson and the two other dickheads just took credit and referred to Franklin as their "assistant", who did a very good job of
>"accidentally stumbling across something that she as a women could never understand."

Look it up.
They were 3 crazy old white sexist, racist curmudgeons that never contributed to anything that ended up in the White Male nobel prize circle jerk.

>Look it up.
>They were 3 crazy old white

I did look it up.
Watson was 25
Wilkins and Crick were 37
I guess that does seem old to you when you're just a failed twenty something still living at home in his Mom's house.

>I guess that nearly 40 seems old to you
They weren't recognized until years later you moron
Skimming for confirmation bias isn't research

>DNA was discovered by Rosalind Franklin
kek
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
>DNA was first identified and isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869 at the University of Tübingen, a substance he called nuclein

feminist research

Someone ITT is really enraged over the fact that it's scientifically proven that blacks have a lower average IQ than other races and that genetics almost definitely plays a role in it.

>enraged
Laughed.

On a sidenote, captcha just asked to pick out all drinks. I selected the two drinks that were present, but it claimed there was more. The only other liquid were jugs of bleach. I selected them. It then let me through.

thenewblacklist.net/

People argue retarded shit on this website all the time, but there is legitimately one of the dumbest things I've ever seen here. I can't even believe it. You are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable

This needs to be updated. First I can think to add is Alison Rapp, who was fired from her job at Nintendo because she defended pedos

She just gave a fuck about lolicon pornography. That kind of porno doesn't affect rape rate. :^)

No, she was talking about the real stuff, and she even had some views on child sexuality that are, let's say, well outside of the Overton Window.

Notice, though, the scale of that figure as well. Even though there is clearly a positive slope to many of the trendlines, scoring ~700 on the SAT M only corresponded to individuals in the group taking a doctorate slightly under 40% of the time. All the of the other relationships are smaller than that, even for the most intelligent group (Q4).

The point, I guess, is that relative intelligence within a group is measurable and relates to differences in outcome, even at very high levels of ability. The caveat is that high intelligence isn't a magic bullet that immediately makes everyone possessing it successful beyond measure. Although important, it is not the whole story.

He means the structure of DNA was identified by Rosalind Franklin. You know that's what he was talking about.

Do you like nitpicking over semantics? Does it make you feel smart?