Re: [xmca] Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low

Carol Macdonald offers this:-

I am sure that people are familiar with the mainstream concept of "cognitive
dissonance". Leaving aside the problem of using a mainsream term for a
moment, let us say that it is possible to hold conflicting sets of beliefs
about the world, without being aware of doing so. Let us suppose that in
1962, it was politically okay to hold derogatory beliefs about other
cultures. Furthermore, sometimes I think that academics are so plunged
into their work that they may not reflect on other things (like running a
reasonably ordered life.) Perhaps Watson had that belief about Africans
floating around for 45 years in his head, and had never brought it to
consciousness as incompatible with his mainstream work.

Another possible explanation: we know in socio-linguistics, that if a person
had spoken with a stigmatized accent as a child, this can be corrected to a
certain extent as an adult; but with advancing age, the stigmatized accent
is likely to return-- loss of conscious control may have something to do
with it. In the same way personality eccentricities are likely to become
exaggerated. Watson may have lost a measure of self-control/self-monitoring
on expressing personally held-beliefs, even if these are not socially or
politically correct. [This certainly this happened to my grandmother...]

So much for explanations on what went wrong with this eminent scientist.
As Africans we can forgive people their mistakes or indiscretions, because
inclusion (ubuntu) is a higher ethic.

>From an African.
Carol

On 21/10/2007, E. Knutsson <eikn6681@student.su.se> wrote:
>
> How can a "giant of science", who holds a Nobel Prize for work in
> genetics,
> playing a crucial role in the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA,
> be
> considered a "fool" or an "idiot"?
>
> Eirik.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> On 2007-10-21, at 05:33, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > I guess the fact that this fool holds a Nobel Prize for work in genetics
> > makes his remarks particularly dangerous. A year ago I flipped over a
> paper
> > published by the Australian Journal of Psychology which agreed with
> Watson.
> > Both idiots think that a statistical difference in educational outcomes
> can
> > only explained by genetics. Maybe a better explanation would be the
> lousy
> > education our anglo-saxon scientists get from our universities? Given
> the
> > current fad for everything genetic this is all unsurprising, but
> dangerous
> > nonetheless.
> > Andy
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:35:06 +1000
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] reading ability is genetic!? (read this one!)
> >
> > Here's a paper by this group:
> > http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/staff/nick_pdf/CV382.pdf
> > They prove that differential reading ability in people is genetic using
> ...
> > statistics.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- 
"Pax Te Cum"
6 Andover Road
Westdene
2092 Johannesburg
011 673 9265  082 562 1050
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca