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.

  • (C)opied from Twitter

    How is it that the society and the government tolerates the blocking of the roads? Those who object to these practices usually employ a variation of…

  • (no subject)

    Saw in a developer's feed. I tried to find what was it exactly that Tucker has said that has upset the twittersphere so. It wasn't easy. Fox,…

  • (C)opied from Twitter

    I don't remember whether I've posted this picture here. A daily reminder of the state of the industry:

  • 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.