Comment author: Vaniver 25 January 2016 07:26:02PM 1 point [-]

When it comes to scientific importance, it's important to separate out popular visibility and scientific visibility. If you're not a string theorist, for example, you might have difficulty sorting the names on this list by impact instead of alphabetically. It's probably easier to recognize who on that list have written books or TV shows targeted at the popular audience that it is to recognize which of them have won Nobels!

(Sylvester James Gates, Jr., on that list, is black. But is he important? I'm not a string theorist, and I only know about him because he taught at my alma mater.)

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 09:54:47PM 3 points [-]

Well neither George Washington Carver nor Neil deGrasse Tyson were string theorists, so will you answer my original question?

Comment author: Anders_H 25 January 2016 06:26:51PM *  5 points [-]

Cloud Atlas is my favorite movie ever and I recommend it to anyone reading this. In fact, it is my opinion that it is one of the most important pieces of early 21st century art.

The downvote is however not for your bad taste in movies, but for intentionally misgendering Lana. More generally, you can consider it payback for your efforts to make Less Wrong an unwelcoming place. I care about this community, and you are doing your best to break it.

At this stage, I call for an IP ban.

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 09:53:39PM 8 points [-]

I care about this community

Well, calling for IP bans for refusing to play along with someone's delusions seems a rather strange way of expressing you caring for a rationalist community.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 24 January 2016 05:28:48PM 0 points [-]

Still, off the top of my head I'll name Wendy Carlos, musician, and Sophie Wilson, engineer, both of whom were world-famous (as men) for things that had nothing to do with gender identity before coming out as trans.

Off the top of mine, Lana Wachowski.

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 05:56:26PM 13 points [-]

Lana Wachowski.

Has he done anything impressive since transitioning? Really since the first Matrix movie?

Comment author: gjm 25 January 2016 02:16:15PM 1 point [-]

none of the others were anywhere near this impressive

The original question was not about "impressive" but about "successful". Are you willing to agree that being elected President of the United States constitutes success?

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 05:50:59PM 8 points [-]

The original question was about being a source of vicarious pride. So, does being one of the worst US presidents count? Well, depends how desperate are you for pride.

Comment author: CCC 25 January 2016 12:12:48PM *  2 points [-]

Well, if we go with skin colour as the dividing line, I can certainly come up with quite a number of successful non-whites under several definitions of success.

Wealth? Consider Cyril Ramaphosa, whose current net worth is estimated (by Forbes) at US$450 million.

Politics? Consider Barack Obama.

Those are two fairly well-known definitions of success; there are plenty of successful non-whites for non-whites to be vicariously attached to.

(I notice that other comments have already provided a number of examples of successful gay people.)

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 05:49:21PM 8 points [-]

Consider Cyril Ramaphosa, whose current net worth is estimated (by Forbes) at US$450 million.

His Wikipedia article is rather vague on how he made his wealth, but given that his previous jobs were activist and politician one is inclined to suspect corruption.

Consider Barack Obama.

So is being one of the worst presidents in US history something to be proud of?

Comment author: gjm 25 January 2016 05:19:26PM 1 point [-]

I agree. But the less hyperbolically you make the point, the more reasonable it is to suggest that the shortage of Einstein-level black scientists is the result of factors other than a fundamental mental inferiority in the black population. And that wouldn't suit Eugine's purposes at all.

(It seems to me, though, that even quite a strong "race realist" position would not come close to justifying Eugine's talk of dancing bears.)

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 05:42:51PM 6 points [-]

It seems to me, though, that even quite a strong "race realist" position would not come close to justifying Eugine's talk of dancing bears.

So are you saying George Washington Carver, or even Neil deGrasse Tyson would be considered at all important scientists without being black?

Comment author: EHeller 25 January 2016 04:21:06AM 7 points [-]

I'm not sure the connotation of the term (i.e. a black person being successful at anything is so shocking it's entertainment value all on it's own) makes the statement any better. Especially when discussing, say, one of the most important American musicians of all time (among others).

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 06:00:45AM *  10 points [-]

I'm not sure the connotation of the term (i.e. a black person being successful at anything is so shocking it's entertainment value all on it's own) makes the statement any better.

Of course, it's still true whether you want to acknowledge it or not (Edit: especially outside the fields of sports and Entertainment).

Comment author: bogus 25 January 2016 03:37:49AM *  1 point [-]

I'm pretty sure that MLK and Desmond Tutu would be quite notable even if their minority status wasn't a factor. I'm not familiar enough with jazz music to be able to say much about Louis Armstrong one way or the other, but Scott Joplin certainly qualifies as successful (The Entertainer is possibly his most popular piece, but he wrote plenty more of course). And what about sportspeople like Pelé (one of the greatest soccer players of all time)?

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 05:57:26AM 5 points [-]

Well Desmond Tutu is only as famous as he is because he was involved in a struggle that fit a currently popular narrative. There are many ethnic conflicts around the world, e.g., Congo, Eritrea, Burma, Philippines, that almost no one outside the countries involved bothers to pay attention to.

Comment author: gjm 24 January 2016 06:32:21PM 5 points [-]

I'm pretty sure that was "black pride"

I'm not an expert on the history of these things, but according to Some Guy On The Web the first "black pride" event in the US was in 1991 and the first "gay pride" one was in 1970.

basically dancing bears

Here's a tip for you. If you wish to be seen as someone who simply follows the scientific evidence where it leads and sees that black people are on average of lower intelligence than white people, rather than a garden-variety racist, you might do better not to pretend that no black people are genuinely really good at anything. (Seriously, Louis Armstrong, notable only for being able to play jazz at all despite the handicap of being an inferior black person? Really?)

still not very impressive

I think this says more about what you're prepared to be impressed by when it's done by gay people, than about what gay people have achieved.

pad out the list

You wish to deny that Tim Cook is a good example of a successful gay person? OK, then. I'll just remark that it's not a very uncommon opinion that Cook was as critical to Apple's success as Jobs.

the same ultimately pathetic feel

Certainly not for the same reason, since no one is claiming that gay people (or black people or any other category of people) are responsible for all that's good in mathematics, or literature, or music, or business, or whatever.

a mediocre mathematician by world standards

Well, there's a thing named after him that I'd guess more than half of all professional mathematicians have heard of. That's better than most of us manage. But sure, he's a long way from being Gauss or Riemann.

I don't see that there's anything very bad about a country naming its mathematical institutions after its best mathematician, even if he's not on anyone's top-10 list. (I'd have expected you to be keen on national pride -- or does that only apply to some nations?)

Comment author: The_Lion 25 January 2016 05:52:28AM 4 points [-]

Louis Armstrong

I missed that name in your list, didn't help that none of the others were anywhere near this impressive.

I don't see that there's anything very bad about a country naming its mathematical institutions after its best mathematician, even if he's not on anyone's top-10 list. (I'd have expected you to be keen on national pride -- or does that only apply to some nations?)

I didn't say it was necessarily wrong for them to do this given their circumstances, I just said it was pathetic.

Comment author: gjm 24 January 2016 03:28:48PM 4 points [-]

Oh, really.

"Gay pride" was, I take it, the granddaddy of them all. It doesn't seem difficult to think of some successful gay people, but here in case you're having trouble is a very short list. Oscar Wilde, world-class playwright. Tim Cook, CEO of the world's most successful company. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, prime minister of Iceland. Benjamin Britten, greatest English composer since Purcell. Freddie Mercury, rock star. Alan Turing, mathematician, computer pioneer and helped win WW2.

"Black pride" is a thing, I guess. Martin Luther King, social and political reformer. Barack Obama, president of the world's only superpower. Desmond Tutu, archbishop. Toni Morrison, Nobel-winning writer. Neil deGrasse Tyson, astronomer and TV star. Louis Armstrong, jazz musician.

Those are actually the only two major "pride movements" I know of. There are "white pride" and "straight pride" movements, kinda, but they're quite different in character and I think in motivation, and in any case I don't imagine you'll have any difficulty thinking of successful white and straight people.

I expect there's such a thing as "trans pride", but transness is much rarer than gayness or blackness and was socially unacceptable for longer. (Hence: fewer of them, and more obstacles to their becoming successful.) Still, off the top of my head I'll name Wendy Carlos, musician, and Sophie Wilson, engineer, both of whom were world-famous (as men) for things that had nothing to do with gender identity before coming out as trans.

What pride movements were you thinking of that don't have examples of successful people to look at?

Comment author: The_Lion 24 January 2016 05:41:56PM 18 points [-]

"Gay pride" was, I take it, the granddaddy of them all.

I'm pretty sure that was "black pride". All the successful black people you mentioned are basically dancing bears.

Gay pride is somewhat less so, i.e., they do have Alan Turing and a few artists, but still not very impressive. Heck you had to pad out the list with "Tim Cook, CEO of the world's most successful company", even though it is pretty clearly not his efforts that lead to this state of affairs.

This has much the same ultimately pathetic feel of going to places like Turkey and seeing every mathematics institution named after Cahit Arf, the one decent mathematician the country has ever produced, even though he was a mediocre mathematician by world standards.

View more: Prev | Next