Watson, Crick, DNA, Genius

[Kevin Solway]

I recently watched a documentary about Watson and Crick and the discovery of the structure of DNA.

Essentially what happened was that Watson and Crick got the essential pieces of the puzzle from other people who were working on it, and then put the pieces together before anyone else did.

It seems that Watson and Crick were more anxious to solve the problem than anyone else - probably because they had nothing else to do. Other people working on the problem didn't seem to think the problem was quite ready to be solved.

But in doing something nobody else could be bothered to do, and in being able to see the bigger picture, I believe that Watson and Crick displayed some genius.

It was nothing magical, but it was something special that makes things happen.

[Matt Gregory]

My dad once told me that to be successful, you only have to do the work that no one wants to do.

[David Quinn]

They were just a couple of egotists chasing Nobel glory, weren't they?

[Kevin Solway]

They were just a couple of egotists chasing Nobel glory, weren't they?

Certainly, but if it wasn't for those very small expressions, almost hints, of genius, there wouldn't be any advances in science and knowledge.

I think they were displaying a touch more genius than the average male has.

[Matt Gregory]

So the genius is the janitor of the current thoughtscape. He's one of the few who sees the mess and feels compelled to clean it up. Think about how often every philosopher who wrote got sidetracked into dealing with current events instead of remaining exclusively on universal knowledge. This must be the drive that advances philosophy. The thinker begins by attempting to resolve the world's social problems and as he advances further and further he is unwittingly led into the Infinite.

[Matt Gregory]

They were just a couple of egotists chasing Nobel glory, weren't they?

There are scientists with a touch of genius, and then there are:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/ ... h-medicine

???

[David Quinn]

Kevin wrote:

DQ: They were just a couple of egotists chasing Nobel glory, weren't they?

KS: Certainly, but if it wasn't for those very small expressions, almost hints, of genius, there wouldn't be any advances in science and knowledge.

I think they were displaying a touch more genius than the average male has.

With plenty of emphasis on the "touch more", I should say. To my mind, they were just two young postgrads who were in the right place and the right time and simply joined a few dots together at the end of a long communal process created mainly by others. They had all the pieces of the puzzle handed to them and all they had to do was arrange them in the right order. You only had to look at their first attempt to map the DNA chain (which turned out to be a laughable mess) to see how lacking in genius they were.

The most striking aspect of the whole affair was the pettiness of all of the scientists involved. They were all trying to elbow each other out of the way so that they could solve the problem and announce their findings first. They even withheld information from each other, thus throwing into jeapody the advancement of this particular branch of science. It makes you wonder how much of this goes on in the scientific community elsewhere.

-

[Dave Toast]

Tsk tsk, there's an aesthetically appealing aspect to the correct spelling of jeopardy too ;-)

The will to compete, often at any cost; masculine or feminine?

[David Quinn]

It's fundamentally a feminine trait, but it has the potential to transform into a masculine trait in some individuals.
In their daily lives, women are generally far more competitive than men. They are constantly trying to outshine each other with their dresses and hairstyles and glowing kids, and they are constantly backstabbing each other. It is not a very conscious or purposeful form of competitiveness, of course. Most of it is simply a nervous reaction driven by panic and anxiety.

When men compete against each other in business, sport and science, they are still being very feminine. For they are still being motivated by the desire to receive praise and adulation from others. They are still being driven by the same sort of narcissism and anxiety that drives women. Granted, their competitiveness is more structured and overt, and men are far more conscious about it, but it is still a feminine activity nonetheless.

It's only when you leave all that behind and try to conquer your ignorance about Reality itself that your competitive instincts can be sublimated into the masculine traits of single-mindedness, spiritual courage, genius, hunger for the ultimate understanding, etc. I think that Watson and Crick had a bit of this in them, but they were still primarily motivated by their feminine desires.

-

[Dave Toast]

Yep, I suppose it's not about being top dog per se. It's more motivated by the desire for the trappings of being top dog.