tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post6565630784846346510..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Are we still doing 'beanbag' eu(genetics)? Part II. History's unlearned lessons?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-546497378497485162014-12-16T21:33:18.034-05:002014-12-16T21:33:18.034-05:00I'll just finish by saying that the mantle of ...I'll just finish by saying that the mantle of science does not allow one to study anything one chooses. We all have iRBs that do in fact block some sorts of inquiry (more accurately, we know better than to propose, say, torturing lab mice or even volunteer human subjects even if they'd consent, so investigators tend not to propose such things and are often told they can or can't do this or that method, etc). The question for me is where the lines are to be drawn, and why.<br /><br />But this is not the place for such a discussion beyond what we've already had. So we'll move on to our next posts.....and hope for a good holiday season for one and all!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-19105335398393631382014-12-16T19:39:10.744-05:002014-12-16T19:39:10.744-05:00I will let it go Ken.
However, you cannot claim t...I will let it go Ken.<br /><br />However, you cannot claim the mantle of science if you block inquiry.<br /><br />You can "win" regardless of what the science reveals. That's where I want you to have faith.DGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-6112835894362582482014-12-16T19:12:59.004-05:002014-12-16T19:12:59.004-05:00Many do indeed think that there are genes 'for...Many do indeed think that there are genes 'for' particular aspects of culture-related behavior, such as adventure-seeking, being 'liberal' politically, IQ, and much else.<br /><br />Many rationales have been found, usually various religious forms, for discrimination. My view is that science should not be allowed to become yet another rationale and Darwinian/genetic science already has proven, over more than a century, that it fits the bill for those seeking one.<br /><br />Even when or where there may be genes predisposing relevant to culture-related traits we should be very restrictive as to what can be studied and done. The line is fine between doing this in entirely salubrious ways related to disease, and for optional ways that can lead to societal damage.<br /><br />Mean IQ test scores by group are almost inevitable regardless of the group definitions, just as a matter of statistical sampling and one's choice of signficance cutoffs. The problem is when this is attributed to inherent rather than achieved abilities.<br /><br />Anyway this is now well-trodden ground, and time to move on to other things.<br /><br />Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-46761032495922376302014-12-16T18:47:43.872-05:002014-12-16T18:47:43.872-05:00Maybe I should limit my comments and keep them to ...Maybe I should limit my comments and keep them to an occasional high five.<br /><br />Some people, common folk, educated folk, some of whom are qualified scientists are modern day Aryans. They think that culture is strictly controlled by genes. Some people(s) are not allowed to join their club even if they try to adopt their culture. If you don’t have their culture genes you fail at adoption. As a general rule they blame bleeding heart liberals and Jews for all of the world’s problems, past and present.<br /> <br />Some people, common folk, educated folk, some of whom are qualified scientists do not believe we are controlled by culture genes. However, if those scientists that are on the “right side” of history, throw up their hands in the face of genetic research and by default hand the victory to the other side, the common folk and educated folk on this side will be dis-advantaged in their attempt to use science to inform their beliefs.<br /><br />Just because the Bell Curve describes the difference in IQ between blacks and whites is not reason to bring back slavery. Slavery was “wrong” before the Bell Curve and it is wrong now. Whatever research in genetics reveals, it will not give legitimacy to evil. Jews were murdered for hundreds of years before the word genetics came into being. People who hate will use what is a hand to justify what they want to do. The greater the taboo; the greater the need for inquiry. <br />DGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-4830525191057402822014-12-16T17:04:25.525-05:002014-12-16T17:04:25.525-05:00If I understand your latest message you have got m...If I understand your latest message you have got mine 180 degrees off. I am very skeptical about attributing social issues to genes, and I am much more amenable to the malleability rather than genetic determination of personal traits. As an anthropologist as well as geneticist, I think that in areas of behavior what we evolved 'for' was making judgments about our surroundings and acting on those rather than being hard-wired.<br /><br />Maybe we are just talking at cross-purposes or misperceiving each other's messages. Unfortunately, tomorrow's post may not help....Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-26613880252772882472014-12-16T15:27:30.675-05:002014-12-16T15:27:30.675-05:00You have every right to your point of view. You su...You have every right to your point of view. You surely know that if you appeal to science to inform your views on social and political issues then you diminish your authority by placing certain areas off limits. I know that you know this so I don’t even know why I commented on it.<br /><br />I will match your age and I have seen what some people once considered immutable personal tendencies turn out to be quite flexible cultural artifacts.DGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-74408020093860687122014-12-16T13:51:15.092-05:002014-12-16T13:51:15.092-05:00DG
I believe that erring on the side of pessimism ...DG<br />I believe that erring on the side of pessimism in situations such as this is the better policy--easing up on the caveats is always an excuse for those pushing ahead to push ahead (viz: fracking, GMO ag, climate change).<br /><br />As to slavery, effective if not de facto slavery exists in many parts of the world (and from what I hear, de facto slavery even in the US). It is rare, of course, but... I think a lot of people here in the good ol' USA would accept slavery if it were allowed (de facto or de jure).<br /><br />And what about the growing ISIS movement that essentially treats war captives, non-believers, and women essentially as slaves. The pattern is no different from what we read about in classic Greek and Roman etc times, or found in native American societies.<br /><br />So you can voice your optimism if you want but I think we should err on the other side. <br /><br />A number of years ago, but not all that many, Michigan voted to make an even distribution (not local income-based) distribution of school taxes to give lower income districts similar resources and redress structural racism. As I understand it, the program has basically failed--is the racist disadvantage in the state less than before as a result? Also, what I read, at least, was that the move led the people in the upper income areas to donate funds to their local districts, to keep the level of privilege.<br /><br />Whatever the details, I think this is the general story, don't you? As has been said, democracy must be defended with vigilance at all times, because so many forces work against it (don't we see that in our country today?) In fact, a lot of people don't believe in democracy (their right, of course) and there is a lot of demagoguery around by politicians working in the interest of the powerful. <br /><br />Read some work by Jews and others who were in Germany during the 30s and how they casually dismissed the rise of the Nazis. Read some of the textbooks in the eugenic era. See some of the history of the way Darwinism (biological or social) was used to justify and impose inequity.<br /><br />I am not making any new observations! I claim no particular insight. Everyone has to evaluate risks and benefits from his/her own perspective. But I'm old enough to have seen enough of human tendencies to believe that casual optimism is the first step in acquiescence.<br /><br />So I see your point but make no apology for my level of caution (and, of course, nobody's listening anyway!)<br /><br />Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-40399772838498657352014-12-16T13:26:56.338-05:002014-12-16T13:26:56.338-05:00Lyndon,
"the idea that inherited intelligenc...Lyndon,<br /><br />"the idea that inherited intelligence levels would mean leaving behind those on the bottom seems like a social issue that may come to the fore whether we stack those supposed intelligence levels gene-wise or as phenotype"<br /><br />Excellent point. People are left behind now and lower intelligence is a major factor in their being left behind. If one is concerned about individuals being left behind for whatever reason, then deciding what is possible and what is not possible from a social and political view will benefit from free scientific inquiry. <br /><br /><br />Ken, <br /><br />Try to read some optimism into your history. It is near impossible to find someone today that will defend slavery. Back up 400 years and you would have had great difficulty finding someone who thought slavery needed a defense.DGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-75010369762856880392014-12-16T11:56:19.058-05:002014-12-16T11:56:19.058-05:00I agree with you, Lyndon.
Phenotypes are better pr...I agree with you, Lyndon.<br />Phenotypes are better predictors of later phenotypes than genotypes are (i.e., prodromal states vs inherited genotypes). There are many issues here, and social policy is an important one. Belief in inherent predictability is a ready-made excuse for demagoguic or other social policy to discriminate for or (usually) against people.<br /><br />I think there is a practical side to the sometimes religion-like devotion to genotypic causation. We spend more time and resources mapping, mapping, mapping when if genetic causation is as important as is being claimed (here, we're referring to biomedical applications), then there is a clear way to show that:<br /><br />We know of tens if not hundreds of essentially clear-cut single-gene causation of undesired disease-related, life-impairing traits. Other than prenatal prevention, however, there are scant cases where genetic knowledge is directly used to prevent or cure such traits. Let's focus resources on developing those, so we can systematically tackle them with success. Then, with such things in place, one can make a case for turning to the somewhat less clear-cut genetic predictors--those with lesser effects.<br /><br />Meanwhile, perhaps resources would be better, or vastly better, spent on things like effective vaccines and the like for infectious agents. Indeed, since vaccine technology these days is (I think) largely genetic and directly molecular, transformative understanding of how to make good vaccines against external pathogens might then be turned to 'vaccinate' against pathogenic genetic variants.<br /><br />Anyway, behavior genetics always flirts with societal disaster, even if rarely intended that way, which is why I think it is important to be very wary even of hints of it. I don't think we can invest the level of trust required that things will be done only for the good (hard to agree on anyway), based on what I see in human history.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-82917170013516975862014-12-16T11:42:36.619-05:002014-12-16T11:42:36.619-05:00Very enjoyable, all of this.
There is a bit of am...Very enjoyable, all of this.<br /><br />There is a bit of ambiguity here:<br /><br />“In a sense, from our point of view, it doesn't matter if these sub-par-performance traits are 'genetic' or not. The point is we have zero serious need to 'diagnose' them by genotyping. We know that even for the vast majority of diseases, actual phenotypes are better predictors by far than genotypes.”<br /><br />Given what was above this passage, is not part of the problem that genotype explanations were actually bad explanations. That is, claims of genotype for these traits were wrong and even beyond our grasping at this point in time. Its not to say that genotype would always be beyond us, if we could first even define these traits or diseases. Addressing the issues via phenotype is the most appropriate because in reality it is all that is possible at the present time. There are larger issues, as displayed, about what a genotype explanation will look like, but there may be reason to think that such explanations could be socially beneficial if we could actually grasp them. <br /><br />Also, from earlier on, the idea that inherited intelligence levels would mean leaving behind those on the bottom seems like a social issue that may come to the fore whether we stack those supposed intelligence levels gene-wise or as phenotype. Our guard against such problems will need to be by adequate social policy irregardless of what constitutes differences. As I see it, the current state of affairs has people running around hopelessly with very marginal theories of genotype (or essentialization of identity), and then applying or justifying social practices based on that muddle (e.g. multiple intelligences). Lyndon Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02628514330681989555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-28601540493198215962014-12-16T11:38:18.477-05:002014-12-16T11:38:18.477-05:00Well, I may be a pessimist, but I pay attention to...Well, I may be a pessimist, but I pay attention to history. There are many good things afoot in biomedical research, but I think it can be directed in a more clearly relevant direction, and I also think more subjects ought to be taboo, at least as far as publicly funded research goes, because geneticizing (and hence attributing inherency) to socially sensitive traits has, for me, more risk than benefit. It's just my view, of course, and taking precautions isn't the usual mode of societal action when it comes to these sorts of thing.<br /><br />Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-38195673172029668102014-12-16T11:22:32.847-05:002014-12-16T11:22:32.847-05:00I was accusing you of losing faith in the better n...I was accusing you of losing faith in the better nature of us humans. I tried to do it in what I think of as a nice way. You seem to have decided before you know the answers that the risks outweigh the benefits. A theme of your writing is that we are not slaves to our genes. Instead, we use reason and our cultures to modulate our baser biological drives and emotions. Yet you get to a certain point and “lose your faith”. If free inquiry has worked so far, why would it not work now? And, yes, faith can calm the storm.DGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-26496051643612680152014-12-16T09:55:56.830-05:002014-12-16T09:55:56.830-05:00Can't really respond to this comment! Not jus...Can't really respond to this comment! Not just because we're not biblical scholars, but because we don't get your point. Or whether the sea and winds should be calmed, even if they could. Or is the tide not fearful?Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-69646306302026760742014-12-16T09:35:53.303-05:002014-12-16T09:35:53.303-05:00And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye o...And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.<br /><br />DGnoreply@blogger.com