4 Nobel Prize Winners Who Were Clearly Insane
There is a quote attributed to Enrico Fermi on what characteristics were common to Nobel Prize winners: "I can't think of a single one. Not even intelligence." While there's no solid evidence he really said that (people have attributed it to two different pages of an old physics journal), I like to believe he did because it's humorously bitchy. Oh no you din'nt, father of the nuclear reactor!

"Oh I went there."
The point is, geniuses tend to only be geniuses on one subject. Just as you don't ask Peyton Manning for soccer tips, you don't ask a veterinarian to do your prostate exam. And you really don't want to ask William Shockley about genetics.

Prize: Physics
Talked Out Of His Ass About: Genetics
William Shockley was probably named by the same people that write Batman comics, because he invented the transistor.

Rejected names: John Electron, Brian Semiconductor.
The transistor became the basis of a new invention called the "computer" which I suspect those of you reading this may be familiar with.
After a failed attempt at running a business, he became a professor at Stanford, which was more than happy to take on a Nobel Prize winner. While he enjoyed the job, he apparently had way too much spare time to think about non-physics related things. Like eugenics.
He decided that intelligence is determined by our genes, which most people agree is partially true. Then he decided that black people had less of these good genes, and it all went to hell. Highlights of his self-destructing career path include a Senate campaign on the platform of sterilizing people with sub-100 IQs, and becoming the only Nobel Prize winner to answer a call for donations to a superbaby sperm bank.

According to IMDB, he also played a rapist in Showgirls. Movie makeup is amazing these days!
Robert Graham, the founder of the sperm bank, sent out invitations to 25 or so Nobel Prize winners as part of a mission to encourage reproduction of the best and brightest before the world was flooded with morons. Three actually participated but none admitted it except for Shockley, who also added that the Nobel winners that refused to donate should be ashamed. Graham advertised his... product... as a selection of "the choicest genes... above average is not enough." For some reason, the public responded negatively to this, forcing Shockley to, uh, pull out, so to speak. Someone out there was buying though, because the bank stayed in business for 19 years.

And who could blame him for wanting to spread his sexy superhero genes?
As he saw it, all the hubbub was because everyone was misunderstanding his views, blowing it out of proportion when he said innocent things like, "If you found a breed of dog that was unreliable and temperamental, why shouldn't you regard it in a less favorable light?" Communication issues aside, he literally did want to reduce the black population and sterilize low-IQ people, and all his care in selecting interviewers and tape-recording every conversation did nothing to clear up the "misunderstandings" he thought were causing his problems.
How did this affect his career? Well, Stanford really didn't do anything about it except let him keep on keeping on, even making him a professor emeritus when he retired (about 10 years after he started airing his views on eugenics). That's Latin for a retired professor who is so awesome that he will be given an honorary title for the rest of his life and will always have a home at Stanford.

Yes, it's really called Leland Stanford Junior University. One of the more useful facts I learned at Berkeley.
The protection of Stanford aside, very few others wanted anything to do with Shockley as the years went by. He died an outcast, which is a little sad considering those who knew him paint a picture of a guy who was not a horrible man, but just... really clueless about anything that was not a transistor.

Prize: Chemistry
Talks Out Of His Ass About: Everything Else
On the other hand, Kary Mullis, 1993 chemistry Nobel Prize winner, is by all accounts a dick.
First his accomplishments: He invented a process called PCR, which is every bit as important to biology as the transistor is to computers. You're not here for a biology lesson, but without PCR, we basically wouldn't be able to study DNA. That also means we wouldn't have the CSI shows, so, was it worth it? You decide.

Kary Mullis is directly responsible for this. Directly responsible.
All right, now for his dickishness: Mullis feels that figuring out how to copy a molecule that has been copying itself since life began apparently qualifies him to say that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. What does cause AIDS? Maybe promiscuous gay sex, says Mullis. That causes gay men to become breeding grounds for a mass of viruses which somehow trigger an "immune chain reaction."
Instead of ignoring the crazy old man, mainstream media outlets like Spin and ABC's Nightline eagerly gave him a platform to yak on about his ideas.

Far from the only questionable decision Spin has made.
In the Spin interview, which introduces him to readers as a "rebel genius," he explains why we shouldn't pay attention to things we can't see, like molecules, but instead pay attention to things we can see, like gay orgies:
"People who sit there and talk about it don't realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so. You don't need to look that far. You don't discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things. You just look at what the hell is going on. Well, here's a bunch of people that are practicing a new set of behavioural norms. Apparently it didn't work because a lot of them got sick. That's the conclusion."

Left: science. Right: hogwash.
And still some people can only see the Nobel Prize. When places like Saddleback College (not related to the church) keep inviting him to ramble about whatever the hell he wants for an hour or two, it makes a guy like Mullis think that whatever he says must be important.
When a student at the Saddleback lecture pointed out that he was a not a biologist or a doctor but a chemist, the Nobel laureate rebutted him with the irrefutable argument, "And you're a little boy!"

Left: How Mullis thinks he comes across (from his book). Right: How Mullis actually comes across.
Even now, he's still got videos on TED, a non-profit foundation dedicated to spreading "ideas worth spreading" that features speakers like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Bono and Nobel Prize winners like Mullis. TED mentions that Mullis invented PCR and surfs and seems to skim over a few other things.

Reviewers and biographers often latch on to his contrarian nature and his enjoyment of drugs, womanizing, and surfing to paint him as some kind of cool rock star rebel instead of a half-lucid old guy addicted to feeling more special than everyone else. When a regular old guy surfs, parties, drives fast cars, and goes to strip clubs, we shake our heads and say, "Mid-life crisis." Add a Nobel Prize and suddenly other people start acting like he's so cool for doing things stuffy old scientists aren't supposed to do.
It's like how people don't pay any attention if you pull into a parking space properly, but when they see you were a woman, they start clapping.
Some people suggest his heavy LSD use when he was younger might be contributing to his... eccentricity. Whatever the cause, Kary Mullis is the poster child for not assuming a Nobel Prize is a qualification for anything.








Every time I read anything written by Christina H I like her a little more. This is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
ReplyAgreed.. this is randomly my 3rd one of hers tonight. The parking spot thing made me LULZ =P
James Watson should be added to this list. I saw him speak over the summer. Dude is a little bit racist and a lot a bit crazy.
ReplyWow, some of these guys were kind of (insert plural rude word/name here).
ReplyWhy does Shocker seem like a perfect fit for a character in a BioShock game?
Replydont worry bioshock 4 is on its way
Is it called "The Search For Bioshock 3"?
4. I am definitely in agreement. Regardless of plausibility, genetic discrimination is just as bad as any other form of discrimination, and as global genetic knowledge develops perhaps even a threat (Gattaca scenarios).
Reply3. Continued agreement. There isn't any evidence even close to supporting Mullis' AIDS argument. I am however an LSD advocate; like many tools and activities, there are abusers, and there are those with prestige.
2. Obvious agreement although I do not understand how this is not number one. Einstein revolutionized physics. It is very interesting information though concerning the outcome of the war and many other almost unbelievably huge strides in concepts and inventions implemented by the German scientists and engineers (rockets and the origins of Space travel in particular).
1. The only current, reasonable assumption concerning cold fusion is that it is impossible by current means. That does not mean that it is impossible, but simply unwise to pursue at the current time. However, I disagree with the adversity to the possibilities of telepathy. My only answer to that argument: think about it. Furthermore, the notion of destiny is one I have found to be broadly entertained amongst physicists. It may not necessarily be a supernatural force, but perhaps even with the multitude of dimensions in the universe, and our own limited perceptions, beyond them there is a way that things will happen. There are elements of this concept universally, galactically, locally, etc. Example: eventually the Sun will die. It is destiny.
Also, albeit acknowledging that it is likely done for sake of humor, the Taco Bell comment is completely a non sequitur to Josephson's credibility as a scientist. Tastes in food are like tastes in music; some people are just weird.
Wow is this some kind of joke? The guy was a genius, quite reasonable in debates, who touched on a touchy subject. No doubt his media image was fraught with lies perpetrated by reverse discriminatory "civil rights" groups and low IQ journalists completely oblivious to the finer points of these issues. Blacks actually are a standard deviation below whites on average in IQ, and IQ is an almost entirely genetic trait. There are theories involving things like the Flynn effect that might allow for the possibility of the gap eventually being closed, but the majority of the naive egalitarian arguments you hear on this subject (IQ is meaningless, tests are culturally biased, IQ is environmental) have been proven to be myths. They are lies perpetrated by people who will do absolutely anything (even ruin a man's life) to prevent the truth on the subject from coming to light.
ReplyIQ is environmental. How else does one explain that average IQ scores have gone up throughout the 20th century? If someone gets educated (or educates themselves) better, they score higher on an IQ. I assume this is the "Flynn effect" you're talking about. Short version: you're a racist dumbass/troll.
So your ignoring the part where he wanted to sterilise anyone with a low IQ are you? Additionally intelligence is at most 10% genetic with the rest being enviromental factors.
I much prefer "hot" fusion over cold fusion ;;;-)
ReplyWilliam Shockley, like Hitler and Stalin and American medicine of the 20's and 30's promoted eugenics(they of course had the resources to practice it by force) and are rightly demonized. But Charles Darwin, who concocted the whole evil theory and wrote on it at good length(duh:The Origin of Species!) and Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood(who only allowed abortions and abortion clinics for minorities, and in mostly black neighborhoods) are hailed as near Gods of science and women's rights. What a joke the 'establishment' has played on us all. Don't you love it when the PC crowd tells you who you can and can't hate?
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replies'The whole evil theory' stated that a species thrives by adapting to its environment. That's it. A population producing successfully a generation reproducing successfully is the winner within the species. Darwin already in his 'Origin' speculated on how ethics (acting decently towards your fellows) might be a part of a successful evolutionary strategy. Whenever eugenics is stated as a sound procedure for social engineering based on natural science, you've got people talking out of their asses. Evolution is amoral; morality is species-specific. And whenever you've got people stating the theory of evolution is evil based on the existence of eugenics, you've got people wildly and horrifyingly misreading history and social dynamics, you.
Drop the jhenry. Pursue the 69.
Yeah Darwin never advocated eugenics he was speaking on a species wide level in comparison to other species. Additionally people like Kropotkin later pointed out that many species survive due to extremely effective co-operation such as with ants or wolves so theres no reason to assume evolution should only produce amoral sociopaths.
Admittedly, all but one of these guys should be written off, but as far as telepathy and cold fusion goes, we shouldn't dismiss them. Imagine a time when gravity, genes, or ...ahem... evolution were considered crazy. Thought and consciousness are still far from being even basically understood. Many scientist have even postulated a quantum level phenomenon as the basis of thought. So lets not be so sure of our current accepted model of the universe, right?
ReplyI know of no time in the history of science when the theory of gravity was considered crazy. Isaac Newton got pretty much immediate acceptance for it when he (finally) published.
As I recall, evolution got pretty good reviews from the scientific community, as well. Darwin and Wallace did their work well and made their point thoroughly.
They myth of the ridiculed genius probably does more damage to public perception of science than almost anything else. Usually, when scientists reject a theory, it's because it doesn't match the data and they're generally right to do so.
"Many scientist have even postulated a quantum level phenomenon as the basis of thought."
On some level, it has to be. It's also the basis for the wind and Justin Beiber since all matter and energy follow quantum laws. It's a fairly meaningless and useless statement. Or are you buying into the "What the Bleep Do We Know?" ideas?
"Isaac Newton got pretty much immediate acceptance for it when he (finally) published."
Actually, a lot of people thought Isaac Newton's theory of gravity was pretty stupid at first, since it relied on an "occult force" (ie an invisible agent, a force which could not be directly perceived, only its effects measured.)
"Rejected names: John Electron, Brian Semiconductor."
ReplyMarry me Christina.
Josephson Junction - What's your function?
Replyhookin' up currents and superconductors
(i think, according to wikipedia)
You both need a cartoon. One of you could be a talking dog with sunglasses and the other one could be a kooky bird.
*covers bottom part of screen with hands*
ReplyI predict the comment section will be full of people arguing that genetic intelligence is a good theory with lots of merits and we're just too PC to admit it.
*uncovers screen and reads down*
Just to be clear: becoming an emeritus professor just means you've retired after being a professor. There's no particular value placed by the institution on that title beyond what they already gave you when they promoted you to professor in the first place.
ReplyIt removes the deniability factor.
Hey, read "Irreducible Mind" and you'll discover telepathy is probably real. It's a book by people with actual degrees, unlike the author.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYes, without any evidence for it. Kind of like how god is real...
The author went to UC-Berkeley. Where's your degree from?
Having a degree doesnt mean your automatically right about something. For instance having a degree in history does not allow you with no evidence to back it up claim Godzilla was the first president of the US.
through your boy barack obama in this for saying he will make healthcare free, win the popular vote, and then not make it free but also make it so that the rich class gets richer and the poor class gets poorer, no more middle class. f**k obama, noones dumb enough to kill him because f**k, nothing good will come of it. people will like obama if he gets killed like when your other boy micheal jackson died and then all of a sudden people forgot he was a s**tass and loved him.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesWell, your screen name makes this reply easy: Dumbass!!!
Obama did win the popular vote (unlike the last republican president).
He never said HC would be free
And it is the republican congress who pushes the idea that giving more money to the rich will somehow save us (becasue it wored so well 00-08.)
So nice try, maybe in a decade or so the rightards will decide to join reality. But probably not, it is too hard to believe the rightist platform if you have to consider reality as well.
AbbeySomeone and Urcbub you really shouldn't engage in a battle of wits with someone who obviously doesn't have any. Intelligent people know the score here about the GOP (Greedy Old People).
I don't usually acknowledge and reply to softheaded retards like yourself, but I just had to this time. Your entire post was invalid when you apparently confused "throw" with "through". They don't even sound the same, how did you mess that up?
I for one am glad the article stuck to what it stuck to. If it included the Peace Prize or the Literature Prize (or even the Economics Prize), there would be even more raving lunatics, with fewer actual qualifications.
ReplyI nominate Al Gore. For basically being wrong about everything.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesAnd now you will shut the hell up and thank him for granting the world this gift that is the internet which you seem to abuse by spreading such blasphemy.
Ahahaha! You actually believe Al Gore created the Internet! Typical pinheaded liberals! Even though he tirelessly championed the Arpanet project and secured for it the funding it needed, he...wait, where was I going with this?
Wait- I thought Omega S was joking.
At least he created something... what has a republican created? An economic crash?
Science, and human knowledge and understanding as a result. It will always be cut off at the point that it starts to ruffle people's delicate little feelings or contradict the insipid views general society demands everyone follows. 'NOOO, that's not what we want to hear! Stop it, stop!'. It's nice to see how far we've come since the Dark Ages.
Replyyeah, totally. Not supporting eugenics in spite of not having a model of DNA and not supporting the idea of telepathy despite completely lacking observations of the actual phenomonem is totally a sign of the entire human race sliding into the Dark Ages.
So middle aged men aren't allowed to surf?
ReplyNO! AND NO SPEEDO'S EITHER!
How is John Nash not on this list? He was a Paranoid Schizophrenic. He was actually diagnosed with a mental illness and was convinced U.S. enimies' spies were signaling each other through codes in the media and attempted to crack these said "codes." He also ran away to europe at some point to hide from people he just made up.
ReplyWell...maybe because he was genuine ill? Paranoid Schizophrenic isn't something you "just have". The people above were just full of s**t, not mentally ill. They are just believing in s**t that is beyond understandable - like douchebags.
He is not a Nobel Prize winner. Mathematicians do not win Nobel Prizes. Their equivalent is the Fields Medal.