Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: James Watson

  1. #1
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default James Watson

    James Watson

    [web:6ee9ce080f]http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/18/nobel.apology/index.html[/web:6ee9ce080f]
    [Gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4554078290818900229[/Gvideo]

    What do you think his type is?
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Obviously not ethical

  3. #3
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My guess is ILE (>LII).

    This is interesting: Roselyn didn't want to see me. Why? Because she didn't like me. Why didn't she like you? ... ... uh, because she didn't want to believe in helices.

    That's like really simplistic.

    I don't think he understands people's motives very well at all. ( rather disregarded perhaps)

    Also...

    Linus Pauling's model was wrong... no one at CAL tech told him is was wrong... Why? Because he was like the pope... they didn't have the courage to tell him he was wrong.

    What sort of explanation is that?



    Bah. Now I feel I'm stereotyping ILEs. What I said is even *more* simplistic than what Watson said. Hypocrisy!

    EDIT: Also, his method of building models, of trying *anything* seems very like. He just seems NeTi to me.

    Oh, and he seems irrational... And he's very expressive, but not because he's emoting... he seems like an extrovert... higher energy, conversing with others seems to come easily enough, etc.

    He doesn't need the conversation to go to terribly deep levels... the discussion seems to rest on the surface (I don't know how to explain what I mean by this... or am just too lazy). He doesn't seem to have that 'out there in space inside my head' look to him.

    He does seem to value though isn't an type obviously.

    I think he also values ... I think he just reminds me of other people I know who I think may be ILE. Ahem. But that doesn't say much.

    This typing thing is so fraught with difficulties.

  4. #4
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm going with Ti>Te for sure.
    6w5 sx
    model Φ: -+0
    sloan - rcuei

  5. #5
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was thinking about this more...

    I liked how when Rose asked him if Franklin should have received some credit how the first thing he says is there can only be 3 Nobel winners, and if she was included that would be 4. That is so . And then he adds later, well, she was dead anyway.

    -------------------

    And here I'm guessing, mainly trying to test out my evolving understanding of the functions:

    Questions of how much credit Franklin should get I think also fall into the realm of in a way... I mean, the straight forward thing is that Watson and Crick found the structure first... so technically they won the "race." And I think that's sort of how Watson was looking at it: Franklin didn't find the structure and should then not be given credit. This also seems quite and very much not . He had that expression on his face of a sort of confusion it almost seemed about how to address this question of Franklin when it is just so clear to him that it has little merit (like maybe confusion about what to say to appease others while still maintaining that there is no reason she should have been given credit). The question of it is clear to him because he isn't drawing upon much--he doesn't need . If he were using , questions of fairness might enter his mind more. [BTW, I don't have an opinion about whether or not Franklin should have been given credit (as in the Nobel) because I haven't read enough.]

    --------------------

    More guessing...

    I was also thinking that if I, say, saw a picture that told me it was a helix and this narrowed out a whole bunch of possibe structures in my mind and accelerated my process of finding the correct structure for DNA, that later I would have thought about that over and over again. I would have wondered: what would have happened had I never seen that picture? I would have covered every hypothetical scenario in my mind I could think of. Watson, although he did say that he doesn't think the picture made all that much of a difference in that they would have found the correct structure either way, didn't strike me as having covered these hypothetical scenarios as thoroughly as I would have (though granted I do not know and this is just a single interview of which I didn't even watch the whole thing). He sort of seemed to gloss over it and I didn't think he was hiding anything. So... this tells me he values over . He is adept at using but is the preference. He doesn't think a lot about what *would* have happened ( > ) nor does he care all that much anyway (low ). He does care somewhat about how he is seen by others I think ( > ).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •