Andrey (azangru) wrote,

This is an interesting conversation between the Weinstein brothers, where Bret eventually tells the story of how he got slighted by a biologist, a future Nobel prize winner, to whom, if true, he gave some valuable pointers, but never received acknowledgement and eventually ended up on her black list.

The beginning of the conversation is awkward. Eric interjects, a lot. At some points, he stops Bret from expanding on the biological points he is making, and steers the conversation from to a more human side of the story. He tends to oversell his brother, a lot; which is even more awkward given that Eric is not a biologist and probably doesn’t fully appreciate the impact of someone’s research; but he is happy to engage in name-dropping. Yet, when he finally gets off Bret’s back, the story that unfolds is worth a listen.

On a personal note, I agree with Eric’s assessment that people likely wouldn’t take a professor from Evergeen to be an important scientific thinker — I know that I certainly didn’t. However, in the debate/conversation between Bret and Richard Dawkins, Bret wasn’t making much sense to me. I remember thinking of him as of a misguided weirdo who tries to extend concepts of evolutionary biology to social sciences, where they don’t belong.

  • (no subject)

    The two guys sitting across the table opposite to each other are two Ukrainian brothers who arrived in the US as teenagers: Twin brothers Artur and…

  • (no subject)

    Course description: In today's business world there are massive goals around diversity and inclusion and you are empowered to lead the way as…

  • Via Reddit

    I didn't know what the operation game was, so I looked it up. The guy, indeed, is clearly awake: I only learnt about charlie horse from King's…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.