Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English UK
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log In
    Have an account?
    · Forgotten your password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
NathanASmith1's profile
Dr. Nathan A. Smith
Dr. Nathan A. Smith
Dr. Nathan A. Smith
@NathanASmith1

Tweets

Dr. Nathan A. Smith

@NathanASmith1

Assistant Professor/ Principal Investigator/Neuroscientist👨🏾‍🔬/Glial Biologist 🔬/Democratic activist 🇺🇸 My tweets are my own!!! #BlackandSTEM

Washington DC
thesmithlaboratory.org
Joined August 2011

Tweets

  • © 2019 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Centre
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgotten your password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log In »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not doing it for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account you're not interested in anymore.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart – it lets the person who wrote it know that you appreciate them.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about right now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find out what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Dr. Nathan A. Smith‏ @NathanASmith1 Jan 1

    Watson’s thoughts on race and intelligence, while discredited, remain extremely dangerous and could have devastating consequences for diversifying science because they perpetuate unfounded claims and validate internal biases. #Diversity #Sciencehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html …

    2:37 pm - 1 Jan 2019
    • 67 Retweets
    • 218 Likes
    • A Dangerous Idea Dr. Gelly P Isotope Science Sam Davis 王明杰 Lucia Guerri Nicole Lawson Dr. Anna Carter Latifa Jackson ArtBioCollaborative
    17 replies . 67 retweets 218 likes
      1. C.C. Knight‏ @firstborntweet Jan 1
        Replying to @NathanASmith1 @amy_harmon

        Not discredited whatsoever

        0 replies . 1 retweet 3 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. gringx‏ @NormieDeGuerre Jan 1
        Replying to @NathanASmith1

        Harmon cites Reich saying "it's likely average between-population genetic differences in cognition exist" as acceptable/mainstream. But Watson is discredited/dangerous ... so the conclusion is that some groups are less intelligent but Watson is wrong about which ones?

        2 replies . 1 retweet 4 likes
      3. It's JJ, bitch!  🇫🇷 🇪🇺 🇭🇹 🇮🇱 🇲🇦‏ @CanWeChill44 Jan 1
        Replying to @NormieDeGuerre @NathanASmith1

        Reich says it is not in impossible that groups differ in intelligence without saying which groups would be more intelligent if it were the case. Watson says blacks are less intelligent and it's genetic. See the difference?

        1 reply . 0 retweets 1 like
      4. Sinistra Delenda Est‏ @SJDelendaEst Jan 1
        Replying to @CanWeChill44 @NormieDeGuerre @NathanASmith1

        So it could be that Reich thinks the more sub-Saharan African DNA a person has, the lower their IQ, on average, but that the proportion of sub-Saharan African DNA one has doesn't fit socially-construcated categories like "black". This isn't a big difference.

        1 reply . 0 retweets 0 likes
      5. Stacy Jørgensen‏ @stacy_rie Jan 2
        Replying to @SJDelendaEst @CanWeChill44 and

        No. He made no such statements. You're making assumptions that aren't warranted. Reich is, in effect, positing it could turn out some isolated, non-white populations might have a higher intelligence than those of Euro descent. We truly can't do the experiments to know, however.

        2 replies . 0 retweets 2 likes
      6. It's JJ, bitch!  🇫🇷 🇪🇺 🇭🇹 🇮🇱 🇲🇦‏ @CanWeChill44 Jan 2
        Replying to @stacy_rie @SJDelendaEst and

        This. I don't even know what made the guy above get this twisted interpretation. Probably confirmation bias.

        1 reply . 0 retweets 2 likes
      7. Sinistra Delenda Est‏ @SJDelendaEst Jan 2
        Replying to @CanWeChill44 @stacy_rie and

        You and her both misunderstood my point. I am claiming that his position is consistent with believing specific African populations have lower IQs on average than specific European populations as a result of genetic differences, just that this isn't a "black" and "white" division.

        1 reply . 0 retweets 0 likes
      8. Sinistra Delenda Est‏ @SJDelendaEst Jan 2
        Replying to @SJDelendaEst @CanWeChill44 and

        This is a logical consequence of your statement: "Reich says it is not in impossible that groups differ in intelligence without saying which groups would be more intelligent if it were the case." So he *could* think specific African populations have lower IQs than Europeans. 1/2

        1 reply . 0 retweets 0 likes
      9. Sinistra Delenda Est‏ @SJDelendaEst Jan 2
        Replying to @SJDelendaEst @CanWeChill44 and

        *If* one were to think this, it wouldn't be much of a difference. In other words, "Part of the difference between Africans and Europeans is genetic" is not importantly different to people like Watson than "Part of the difference between black and white people is genetic." 2/2

        0 replies . 0 retweets 0 likes
      10. End of conversation
      1. Lundgaard Lab‏ @Iben_Lundgaard Jan 3
        Replying to @NathanASmith1

        I once sat through a talk where he claimed that women were not as smart as men, using Rosalind Franklin as an example; the woman who produced the data he published and gave him the Nobel Prize! No prize nor advanced age can excuse comments like that.

        0 replies . 0 retweets 5 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. Richard Brandt‏ @rlbrandt Jan 2
        Replying to @NathanASmith1 @amy_harmon

        It was a great, and sad, article. Scientific brilliance does not necessarily confer wisdom. Another issue: Have you re-read "The Double Helix" recently? I read it in college in the1970s and was most struck by one of the female students noting its sexism.

        0 replies . 0 retweets 3 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. Stacy Jørgensen‏ @stacy_rie Jan 2
        Replying to @clegain2 @NathanASmith1 @amy_harmon

        As an evolutionary biologist and injury epidemiologist, I am curious what relevance this chart has to the discussion at hand. Please elaborate.

        1 reply . 0 retweets 0 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Stacy Jørgensen‏ @stacy_rie Jan 2
        Replying to @NathanASmith1

        Ugh. I hate that the NY Times gave this man more coverage. Look at the ignoramuses it brings out, just in response to your post. Watson isn't an evolutionary biologist. Heredity is covered in the first week. Shame he never bothered to formally study the field in all his decades.

        1 reply . 0 retweets 3 likes
      3. ak$cientist‏ @AartiKuverPhD Jan 2
        Replying to @stacy_rie @NathanASmith1

        Airing these views are important to highlight that prominent scientists have unfounded views. We STEMmers heed statistics and data, but not talking heads, right? Why not work in unison to disestablish their rhetoric? @Jackie_Gio

        1 reply . 0 retweets 0 likes
      4. Stacy Jørgensen‏ @stacy_rie Jan 2
        Replying to @AartiKuverPhD @NathanASmith1 @Jackie_Gio

        A field of psychology studies how 'sticky' misinformation is. Sometimes, attempts to correct or retract misinformation have the opposite effect - people believe the misinformation more! The NYTimes is a broad and sticky platform, warranting criticism for covering Watson.

        1 reply . 0 retweets 0 likes
      5. 1 more reply
      1. Jackie Gio‏ @Jackie_Gio Jan 2
        Replying to @NathanASmith1

        so lets stop giving him a global platform to spew this trash

        0 replies . 0 retweets 1 like
        Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1.  ❌DerPatriot ❌‏ @DerPatriotDE Jan 2
        Replying to @NathanASmith1 @amy_harmon

        Where is the lie though?

        0 replies . 0 retweets 1 like
        Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo

    Loading seems to be taking a while.

    Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2019 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Centre
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info