3 ms·

Diamond's book seems to have replaced "The mismeasurement of man" as the go-to screed for "refuting" genetic differences between people. As a response, I would

Diamond's book seems to have replaced "The mismeasurement of man" as the go-to screed for "refuting" genetic differences between people. As a response, I would suggest "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker. The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason."

aswanson 19y ago
Page 6: The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason." Page 1: it has been the long and disastrous habit to look at every variable, any variable, except the obvious ones: The differences between people. !logically_coherent
- mynameishere 19y ago
  No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine.
  - aswanson 19y ago
    But is it not your thesis that this difference is the explanatory variable, in and of itself?
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      Err, no. Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors. That's basically why the soft sciences are soft--avoiding errors in explainations is impossible because everything cannot be accounted for. But, you know, when you say, "Genetic differences count for nothing," when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount, you're assuring a tremendous error.
      - aswanson 19y ago
        Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors Agreed, of course. Genetic differences count for nothing Of course not. We cannot account for the contributory factors nor quantify them, and we cannot quantify for the interplay between the two since there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence due to feedback effects. Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount By what amount under what circumstances for a given individual and situation?
        mynameishere 19y ago
        Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. It depends. Some things are discrete (eg, genetic diseases like huntington's). Most things are on a continuum--there's no IQ gene, for instance. I suspect that, in a rough way, almost every non-junk aspect of the human genome has some effect on intelligence, large or small. The best tests are perhaps still separated twin studies. Identical DNA + different environments makes for a convenient way to quantify the genetic influence of characteristics... Of course, once genetic engineering is in full bloom, all of this will be quite non-controversial.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    "No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine." That is simply not true - exactly the opposite is the problem. Also, what differences between people would you name as accounting factors?
Tichy 19y ago
I didn't read Guns Germs and Steels like that. I read it as portraying an alternative explanation to the "genetic superiority" explanation. It seemed quite plausible to me, but I am not sure if it is true. It was good enough for me to prove that "genetic superiority" is not the only possible solution - a lot of people don't seem to think so, so I think the book is important. I will read "The Blank Slate" - I have been meaning to read another one of Pinker's books for ages. Obviously, there are genetic differences between people. Their effect is another question. Also, the environment is involved in computing the phenotype from the gene. So one and the same gene could produce stupid people in one environment, and in another one smart people (as an example). I haven't read the book yet, but perhaps you can provide some really compelling evidence for genes (of a "race") making a difference. True, pygmies probably won't make great basketballers, but that is not the kind of example we are looking for, or is it? Typically sports is being mentioned in that context, but I don't think it is a very compelling example (safe for the pygmies example). It might just as well be percentages of people choosing to take up sports, for whatever reasons (like maybe, because it offers them the best opportunities).
- aswanson 19y ago
  EDIT -- In reference to The Blank Slate: I read it awhile back, and while there are some stretches in his usage of evolution to explain every form of behavior, e.g., people sat around fires for millenia therefore storytelling ability evolved, his explanations concerning adaptations for general survival utility are well supported. I would recommend reading it with a grain of salt, and take evolutionary psychology for what it is, with the same level of skepticism you would apply to get data from any social "science". EDIT--Some suggestive guideposts when reading in this field: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003817.html http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003817.html http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies.pdf http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies... http://www.badscience.net/?p=518 http://www.badscience.net/?p=518 Be on the lookout for handwaving, but certainly investigate. Don't make it the only book you read in this area...
  - Tichy 19y ago
    "people sat around fires for millenia therefore storytelling ability evolved" I've read "How the Mind Works" before and really liked it, so I have good expectations of Pinker. But in general, that kind of use of evolution theory is really tiresome. No matter what you want to "prove", you can always make up a story and then tag it with "therefore xyz evolved".

aswanson 19y ago

Page 6: The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason." Page 1: it has been the long and disastrous habit to look at every variable, any variable, except the obvious ones: The differences between people. !logically_coherent

mynameishere 19y ago
No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine.
- aswanson 19y ago
  But is it not your thesis that this difference is the explanatory variable, in and of itself?
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Err, no. Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors. That's basically why the soft sciences are soft--avoiding errors in explainations is impossible because everything cannot be accounted for. But, you know, when you say, "Genetic differences count for nothing," when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount, you're assuring a tremendous error.
    - aswanson 19y ago
      Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors Agreed, of course. Genetic differences count for nothing Of course not. We cannot account for the contributory factors nor quantify them, and we cannot quantify for the interplay between the two since there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence due to feedback effects. Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount By what amount under what circumstances for a given individual and situation?
      - mynameishere 19y ago
        Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. It depends. Some things are discrete (eg, genetic diseases like huntington's). Most things are on a continuum--there's no IQ gene, for instance. I suspect that, in a rough way, almost every non-junk aspect of the human genome has some effect on intelligence, large or small. The best tests are perhaps still separated twin studies. Identical DNA + different environments makes for a convenient way to quantify the genetic influence of characteristics... Of course, once genetic engineering is in full bloom, all of this will be quite non-controversial.
- Tichy 19y ago
  "No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine." That is simply not true - exactly the opposite is the problem. Also, what differences between people would you name as accounting factors?

Tichy 19y ago

I didn't read Guns Germs and Steels like that. I read it as portraying an alternative explanation to the "genetic superiority" explanation. It seemed quite plausible to me, but I am not sure if it is true. It was good enough for me to prove that "genetic superiority" is not the only possible solution - a lot of people don't seem to think so, so I think the book is important. I will read "The Blank Slate" - I have been meaning to read another one of Pinker's books for ages. Obviously, there are genetic differences between people. Their effect is another question. Also, the environment is involved in computing the phenotype from the gene. So one and the same gene could produce stupid people in one environment, and in another one smart people (as an example). I haven't read the book yet, but perhaps you can provide some really compelling evidence for genes (of a "race") making a difference. True, pygmies probably won't make great basketballers, but that is not the kind of example we are looking for, or is it? Typically sports is being mentioned in that context, but I don't think it is a very compelling example (safe for the pygmies example). It might just as well be percentages of people choosing to take up sports, for whatever reasons (like maybe, because it offers them the best opportunities).

aswanson 19y ago
EDIT -- In reference to The Blank Slate: I read it awhile back, and while there are some stretches in his usage of evolution to explain every form of behavior, e.g., people sat around fires for millenia therefore storytelling ability evolved, his explanations concerning adaptations for general survival utility are well supported. I would recommend reading it with a grain of salt, and take evolutionary psychology for what it is, with the same level of skepticism you would apply to get data from any social "science". EDIT--Some suggestive guideposts when reading in this field: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003817.html http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003817.html http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies.pdf http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies... http://www.badscience.net/?p=518 http://www.badscience.net/?p=518 Be on the lookout for handwaving, but certainly investigate. Don't make it the only book you read in this area...
- Tichy 19y ago
  "people sat around fires for millenia therefore storytelling ability evolved" I've read "How the Mind Works" before and really liked it, so I have good expectations of Pinker. But in general, that kind of use of evolution theory is really tiresome. No matter what you want to "prove", you can always make up a story and then tag it with "therefore xyz evolved".