Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's a joke.

Which he later clarified by saying he thought it was absolutely true.

.
They fired him from his work because of a perceived sexist comment. He's a Nobel laureate - a scientist with decades worth of knowledge - and they boot him because somebody's feelings got hurt.

Don't feel bad, most people like him are only meaningfully productive in a narrow band around their 20's and 30's. Mostly what he'd have been doing now is making female students and co-workers uncomfortable, and cashing checks while jockeying with the bureaucracy.

The man is 72 and was awarded a nobel prize for his work in 2001.

Lets deal with one wrong statement at a time.

He was awarded the Nobel in 2001 for his work from the very early 80's. Want to start over from there or is your mind so made up that reality has no impact on the end result?

Why do I get the feeling that you're going to make me contemplate suicide?

I concede the point. Scientists older than 40 are not worth their salt, and we should be flippant about their professional value as of that milestone.

Anything else you have a problem with?

I don't know, you seem like someone who wants to make a point without the hard work of actually making your point. I do tend to drive people like that to rage, but I've never seen self-harm yet. Personally, I find that people who back what they say, and are not just pimping their opinions don't seem nearly as frustrated by me, so maybe it's just a matter of who I'm talking to.

I guess you want to pretend that being snarky is a substitute for support, but I don't. The notion that scientists, mathematicians, and other such researchers and theoreticians are often most productive in their 20's and 30's. You think I'm wrong, so you shared a bit of misinformation. Upon being corrected you accept that, but instead of trying to actually support yourself you just lash out.

I think you're actually believing that I'm bullshitting you, but you're not willing to check? I'd urge you to, my claim is exceptionally well accepted:

Older researchers publish more, but produce less which is real and valuable. Of course they are paid more, and more and more dominate the lives and careers of those beneath them. If you've never been in that world, you probably have no concept of how it really works.

I'd urge you to consider matters such as the most productive periods of the great physicists, for one example. It's not as though Einstein stopped being impressive as he aged, but his breakthroughs came in his younger days. Sadly in fact, as he became older he joined with some who rejected implications of quantum mechanics, a la the famous 'PDR' paper. It is axiomatic that power and wages grow with age in these fields, while what you produce may increase with volume it declines in quality.

Yes yes, you have a magical personality that separates the wheat from the chaff... It's a gift, it is...

But... Have you considered that you're a nightmare? Not only are you harping on the least important thing I said, but you're doing it in a fairly condescending way. You wouldn't be trying to "hold your opinions over" me, would you?

I mean, seriously. Imagine you're me, just for a minute (feels good, right?... don't get too comfortable). Now imagine you're me reading your post. Do you see the problem? Do you think I have any interest in having a long point-by-point about the waning likelihood of revolutionary ideas coming from an individual as they age? I don't.

Read what you wrote about him again. Were you being fair? Were you being presumptive? Were you being flippant?

No, you should probably stick to the obvious differences between policing, and the condemnation by your peers. It's a danger of argument from analogy, that you get lost in it.

You might also want to consider that what you want is, what? To have an external authority to reach in and overrule private an institutional employment choices? To shut up Twitter? Sounds to me like you just don't like how the chips are falling, and instead of defending ideas, people would rather play the victim.

Sure. Whatever floats your boat, chief. Just remember that no matter how much you tell yourself you're one of the good people to whom... how did you put it... "backwards thinking" would never occur, one day you'll find yourself on the wrong end of this.

Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense

Care to elaborate on who "we" and "those other people" are? Also, what's the "plan"? Not being insufferably judgmental and devoid of compassion? Crazy plan you're hatching their, Jack. Stop being so human, it'll get in the way of all the wonderful progress that's happening.

Yes not approving of sexism is terrible and makes kittens cry, you got me!

But nah its fucking obvious. He is suggesting people will be on the wrong side of these tactics and apparently his way of handling it is to not use said tactics. Seems like a shitty argument, why the hell would it stop people from using said tactics if we do not? What makes someone think said tactic is okay is supposed to be that they saw someone else use it? Pfft.

And that human thing, really XD

I might as well jump to cheap excuses and say I'm just being human. Try a real argument

I doubt you'd make a kitten cry unless it said something un-progressive.

What are the examples of "those other people" using these tactics before the GG crowd adopted them to such comical effect? Seems to me like "what goes around, comes around" isn't completely without merit. Somebody popularised it...

It's lovely you think it must be some old adage, but a far more reasonable interpretation is that it's merely modernized social disapproval and once a method appears it will not vanish if one small segment of people decide not to use it out of some sort of superstitious fear of it being used on them. Cat is out of the bag, trying to stop others from using it by not using it yourself is like trying to use a magic charm for defense.

I also didn't even mention other people using them before, so please read more carefully before asking me for examples of things I never mentioned, mkay?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

And my point is my use of it will not somehow enable the next use. It's not like legal precedent. When the next person does it only an idiot will try to justify it with "Well other people did it!" That isn't going to be the excuse they use.

And standards aren't going to get 'lower'. They will shift according to opinion. Lower implies it's some defined scale. It isn't.

And if you make a slippery slope argument you should expect that. The way to not make one would be to show how it logically follows, not just try to set up a boogeyman.

Lastly, pay some attention to the democracy comparison. Sometimes it's not the method, it's the goal. And the method won't vanish.

True, the excuse they use would most likely be "I'm right to do this". As for lowering standards, what would it have taken for this to happen say... 6 years ago? I'd say something along the lines of "heil hitler," if not something worse. And then I would've agreed with you that he deserved some backlash. It went all the way from that, to a t-shirt last year, and an off-color joke this year. Call me paranoid if you want, but there it is.

And I highly doubt it was a matter of 'lowering'. It is not some scale. It's a matter of people's opinions shifting. It doesn't reflect some sort of attribute of the method, it reflects how people's opinions of crap change. You imagine some sort of 'direction' to it that it will slide towards. Personally I think people's opinions are a bit more complex than a sliding scale.

 

[B0nz0]

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls ... three things happen when they are in the lab ... You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry."

HA what a jerk!

 

[Dr. Crawver]

You know, I really love free speech, remember those times?

I disagree with him getting fired. Maybe put on suspension for a week if that feels needed, sure. But being fired? Excessive.

That said, it's worth pointing out this is free speech in action. Free speech allows you to say whatever you want (which he did), but it does not protect you from the consequences of it (unless we mean governmental consequences, where there were none. It was a private institution not run by the government).

Once again I agree that his firing is far beyond the pail of what's fair, but don't start muddling and spoiling the discussion by making it a free speech thing when it isn't. All I want to say on it.

 

[sumanoskae]

My problem with this kind of behavior is the lack of perspective. His comment may very well have been insulting or in poor taste, but the possibility that he might be kind of a dick has no effect on his quality as a scientist. To me, it demonstrates that the organization in question is more concerned with playing politics than doing their work.

Some may be quick to point out that the bad press they would receive were they not to take action could jeopardize their economic well being, but if that's the case, there is a bigger problem at work; our priorities as a society.

Are we really so immature that weather or not we happen to personally like someone or the comments they make takes prescience over their skills and qualifications when we consider them for a position?

Making a decision about someone's job on the basis that they made a single offensive statement is petty; that kind of irrational bias is the kind of thing that should get you fired.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Making a decision about someone's job on the basis that they made a single offensive statement is petty; that kind of irrational bias is the kind of thing that should get you fired.

This.
Same shit with the Adria Richards incident.

Bottom line, being a bigot is not the same as being a minority.

Soon enough, we're gonna have people redefining bigotry to "anything I don't like to hear"

 

[ServebotFrank]

How come age never comes into any of these stories? Tim Hunt is like 72 years old.

Like I don't know why people are always ASTOUNDED that old people say something insensitive. Do they not have grandparents? Have they never talked to their grandparents and have them suddenly spout some racist/sexist shit that their parents taught them to believe back in the 50s? Like my grandparents live in Mississippi and are racists (Not hateful racists, but they do say dumb shit) and we just realize that is a normal thing.

I would more irritated if that joke was funny but it kinda wasn't. Still no reason to be fired.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

How come age never comes into any of these stories? Tim Hunt is like 72 years old.

Like I don't know why people are always ASTOUNDED that old people say something insensitive. Do they not have grandparents? Have they never talked to their grandparents and have them suddenly spout some racist/sexist shit that their parents taught them to believe back in the 50s? Like my grandparents live in Mississippi and are racists (Not hateful racists, but they do say dumb shit) and we just realize that is a normal thing.

I would more irritated if that joke was funny but it kinda wasn't. Still no reason to be fired.

Well maybe they should learn that it's normal to get fired for being rather sexist?

Or are they the only ones that need to be accommodated?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

How come age never comes into any of these stories? Tim Hunt is like 72 years old.

Like I don't know why people are always ASTOUNDED that old people say something insensitive. Do they not have grandparents? Have they never talked to their grandparents and have them suddenly spout some racist/sexist shit that their parents taught them to believe back in the 50s? Like my grandparents live in Mississippi and are racists (Not hateful racists, but they do say dumb shit) and we just realize that is a normal thing.

I would more irritated if that joke was funny but it kinda wasn't. Still no reason to be fired.

Well maybe they should learn that it's normal to get fired for being rather sexist?

Or are they the only ones that need to be accommodated?

No you don't understand, it's so simple. When old men complain, it is a tragedy and the world whines with them. When women complain, they are often shouted down as shrill bitches, liars, vindictive, whiners, crying, and all of the other lovely things you've seen in this very thread. Old men are precious resources, who else would buy expensive cars, squire supermodels, molest young boys, start pointless wars, fund and forward dead ideologies?

What are women doing? Probably just thinking of BOYS or something.

*Sarcasm warning*

I do wish there was a like button for when posts are great but there's nothing really to say in response XD

 

[Azure23]

Obligatory post to remind everyone of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Tim Nunt was let go from an honorary position at a university where he had not had a functioning lab for many years. He was paid to associate with them so they could say that have a Nobel winning Professor on staff. They were paying for the name, when the name became associated with sexism, they let him go because it wasn't worth the money. He also lost his fellowship with the royal society, that is also not a job. The Royal Society distributes a lot of grants and organizes functions, that's pretty much it. The hosts of the lunch, an association for Korean women scientists, also asked for and received an apology for "remarks that caused great concern and regret." Tim Hunt still has a livelihood, he will continue to publish papers and in all likelihood continue to put his foot so far down his throat he's kicking his own ass.

 

[manic_depressive13]

"...and when you criticize them, they cry."

And he quickly found out he was right.

In all seriousness, my opinion is the same as the scientist who wore that shirt last year: it was unprofessional, but the lynch mob against him is unwarranted.

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Can you please show how that's what I've done, and not a straw man you're beating to death?

I didn't do that. I was just saying that's the way things are going in in our ultra-politically correct society.

 

[THM]

My problem with this kind of behavior is the lack of perspective. His comment may very well have been insulting or in poor taste, but the possibility that he might be kind of a dick has no effect on his quality as a scientist. To me, it demonstrates that the organization in question is more concerned with playing politics than doing their work.

Indeed. They did an interview with Dr. Hunt and his wife, and that came through very clearly. (The link is here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins)

It should also be noted from the interview that his wife (an academic herself and self-identified feminist), while defending her husband, still thinks what he said was fucking stupid. And it was. Especially if it was something he'd prepared for the speech, since if that was the case he should've run it past A) his wife and/or B) his daughters, to gauge the reaction. If it wasn't, well, at least next time he makes any kind of public statement he'll think more about making an off-the-cuff remark - although he'll probably go too far and self-censor.

Oh well.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

How did he react after? It just came to mind I see people bring him up as some kind of point, but now I wonder if his opinion even coincides with theirs or if he's just convenient ammunition.

 

[EvilRoy]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

How did he react after? It just came to mind I see people bring him up as some kind of point, but now I wonder if his opinion even coincides with theirs or if he's just convenient ammunition.

He donated most of the 25 K gifted to him as an apology on behalf of the people tormenting him, and spent the rest on a plaque for the mission.

I imagine by now he has more or less moved on, but considering this was the event that ruined the most anticipated and successful moment of his life I doubt he will ever forget it. He was so confident in the project he had the landing tattooed on his leg before the touchdown time.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

How did he react after? It just came to mind I see people bring him up as some kind of point, but now I wonder if his opinion even coincides with theirs or if he's just convenient ammunition.

He donated most of the 25 K gifted to him as an apology on behalf of the people tormenting him, and spent the rest on a plaque for the mission.

I imagine by now he has more or less moved on, but considering this was the event that ruined the most anticipated and successful moment of his life I doubt he will ever forget it. He was so confident in the project he had the landing tattooed on his leg before the touchdown time.

Then it sounds like he is likely being used as an example for a point he doesn't support. Very 'SJWish' if so, no?

 

[EvilRoy]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

How did he react after? It just came to mind I see people bring him up as some kind of point, but now I wonder if his opinion even coincides with theirs or if he's just convenient ammunition.

He donated most of the 25 K gifted to him as an apology on behalf of the people tormenting him, and spent the rest on a plaque for the mission.

I imagine by now he has more or less moved on, but considering this was the event that ruined the most anticipated and successful moment of his life I doubt he will ever forget it. He was so confident in the project he had the landing tattooed on his leg before the touchdown time.

Then it sounds like he is likely being used as an example for a point he doesn't support. Very 'SJWish' if so, no?

I don't really care. I was just answering the question that you posed - he seems to have moved on, but very likely still carries the bruises.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

How did he react after? It just came to mind I see people bring him up as some kind of point, but now I wonder if his opinion even coincides with theirs or if he's just convenient ammunition.

He donated most of the 25 K gifted to him as an apology on behalf of the people tormenting him, and spent the rest on a plaque for the mission.

I imagine by now he has more or less moved on, but considering this was the event that ruined the most anticipated and successful moment of his life I doubt he will ever forget it. He was so confident in the project he had the landing tattooed on his leg before the touchdown time.

Then it sounds like he is likely being used as an example for a point he doesn't support. Very 'SJWish' if so, no?

I don't really care. I was just answering the question that you posed - he seems to have moved on, but very likely still carries the bruises.

That sounds very speculative. Personally I wouldn't assume to know his emotional state based off so little. A crying apology seems rough at the time but to assume it's staying with him as if it is some massively traumatic event based on that alone...

 

[EvilRoy]

Oh, you mean the guy who burst into tears after he was criticised? I remember that guy.

That's the one. He cried on television while making a heartfelt apology, then everyone[footnote]except for people who think "crying in public" is the gravest insult a man can suffer and still bring it up to jab at "feminists" that largely exist in their own heads[/footnote] quickly forgot about the incident while celebrating landing on a freaking comet.

How did he react after? It just came to mind I see people bring him up as some kind of point, but now I wonder if his opinion even coincides with theirs or if he's just convenient ammunition.

He donated most of the 25 K gifted to him as an apology on behalf of the people tormenting him, and spent the rest on a plaque for the mission.

I imagine by now he has more or less moved on, but considering this was the event that ruined the most anticipated and successful moment of his life I doubt he will ever forget it. He was so confident in the project he had the landing tattooed on his leg before the touchdown time.

Then it sounds like he is likely being used as an example for a point he doesn't support. Very 'SJWish' if so, no?

I don't really care. I was just answering the question that you posed - he seems to have moved on, but very likely still carries the bruises.

That sounds very speculative. Personally I wouldn't assume to know his emotional state based off so little. A crying apology seems rough at the time but to assume it's staying with him as if it is some massively traumatic event based on that alone...

Any answer anyone could possibly give you would be speculative in nature, without M. Taylor specifically providing a psych report.

My speculation is based on his emotional mood leading up to the landing and following attacks, in combination with my knowledge of his decision to commit this event to flesh via ink. I read him as being extremely excited and confident in the coming work, and euphoric during the successful announcement - and extremely upset following. Going from a peak to a valley in that short of a period would likely result in strong, lasting memories.