James Watson the guy who discovered DNA was stripped of honorary titles based on comments related to race and IQ. there was a lot of discussion about that recently when he died.

▲

tptacek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Before I reply, let me ask: is that your best example?

▲

jayGlow 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Does he not meet the criteria of a famous professor?

▲

tptacek 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe you could start with an actual practicing scientist. One problem you're going to run into here is that, as I said, this is an active area of study. If these papers are firing offenses, someone ought to be telling HR.

▲

jujube3 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Person 1: give me an example of someone who was kicked out of academia for uncomfortable truths.

Person 2: [gives examples]

Person 1: oh ho! But those people are not in academia any more! They're not "practicing scientists"!

Person 2: ...

	▲	tptacek 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, me and my Calvinball rule of "actual scientist prevented from publishing on this subject". There's a kind of Schneierism thing that happens in these threads; like: I could ask, ok, name a scientist practicing in this field. They exist, but they don't have names your 3rd grade science teacher knows.

▲

lopsotronic 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"just for adopting . ."

OK, I'm really sorry, but "just for adopting" is doing some heavy lifting here.

Watson's other greatest hits: worries about Big Black Dicks; melanin injections as boner pill; what I call "The Cunning Chinaman"; and a whole bucket of others.

Taken in sum: it turns out you can be asked to leave a private club if you are being an asshole.

To clear the air, as a card carrying liberal (even a !gasp! Socialist) I don't necessarily reject empirical racial differences based on genetics. Maybe even for "intelligence", for whatever good that does ya, since "intelligence" lacks anything like a quantitative definition.

But I also think that - if they're even present, which is by no means certain - these are not significant differences. Structuring your entire society around quantitative racial differences, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, is not enough juice for the squeeze.

But, well, the juice isn't the point, is it?

It's the squeezing - the ability to brutalize your citizenry, to purge Unmanly Virtues like "empathy" or "introspection", to be always prepared for violence - the squeezing, being able to squeeze, is what is important. And the fastest way to do that is convince a bunch of people that other people aren't people. Europe tried that, a few years ago. You might remember that it did not go well. A lesson America never really got. Maybe someday we'll need to learn the same damn thing the same way, except instead of B-17s and Red Army Sex Crime we get to enjoy thermonuclear weapons. Come back Ivan. All is forgiven.

	▲	tptacek 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean I like to hold my cards closer to my vest than this, but if we're just going right at it: (1) He wasn't a practicing scientist. (2) He wasn't fired for making scientific claims, but rather for saying things like "I'm pessimistic about Africa". (3) He didn't do any research in behavioral genetics, psychometrics, or molecular genetics; his authority in the discussion was "famous science guy". (4) He lost an honorary and, later, an emeritus position, in which his role was not "scientist" but rather "spokesperson for a scientific organization". I wouldn't want him for a spokesperson either, any more than I'd want Ibram X. Kendi or, maybe closer to the mark, Elijah Mohammed as my spokesperson. James Watson was closer to Donald Sterling than to Galileo.