NYTimes: In Which Steven Pinker eviscerates Malcolm Gladwell

[orcenio]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Or the Annalee Newitz link.

What do you think is wrong about it?

Race and intelligence have been defined by cultural methods rather than genetic evidence for a long time. The meme that race doesn’t exist or that intelligence and race are not correlated have not been advanced because of genomic information.

Not a meme, it’s just the prevailing viewpoint of the majority of the scientific community
[QUOTE=AAA]
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=AAA]
THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people.
[/QUOTE]

The contrary is also true. The Bell Curve based its correlation on verbal and written testing, not genetics. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man countered with a variety of arguments based on inheritability but couldn’t support that by genetic testing, which wasn’t available. Genetic testing will change everything.

Genetic testing for poorly understood complex behavioural traits (like temperament, or intelligence) is non-existent; a fact these stupid git “race realists” like Steve Sailer or their defenders seem to use to propagate the “blacks iz dumb” hypothesis (“they can’t prove us wrong!”). What these gits seem to ignore/hand wave is the scientific consensus about race: that humans are highly genetically similar, that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of human genetic variation, even that distribution of genetic variation is quasi-continuous in clinal patterns related to geography, etc.

Of course not. I’m talking the scientific consensus. Scientists have been swinging back and forth between nature and nurture ever since Darwin.

No, they are not, as far as I can tell no one likes to play that game anymore cause it’s stupid…
[QUOTE=Susan Blackmore]
It is not a debate about nurture vs nature. Both Pinker and Rose would agree that genes and environment interact in all evolutionary processes and this is not the focus of their disagreement.
[/QUOTE]
…that is unless a buck is to be made.

We are in a nature cycle today. That’s to be expected since what’s coming out of genome studies is incredibly exciting. In the short term everybody will be using (and overusing) these studies and ignoring non-genetic findings. In the long run, though, the balance will undoubtedly shift back.

I have a feeling the people who are shifting are the idiot readers of popular scientists, not the scientists themselves.

Now you’re just being bizarre. I was making the accusation that Pinker is being lynched for his unpopular opinions. Remember that Gould was attacked throughout his career for being a Marxist. His reputation is currently in decline more because many of the things he espoused seem not to be true in the light of today’s knowledge but during his lifetime it was his politics that drew the heat.

Sorry, I completely misread your comment then. Nonetheless your feeling that Pinker is being lynched is hyperbole, no one is lynching him and he is making quite a lot of money by being his natural controversial self. Pointing out his ties to race realists or even (gasp) calling him “a gene centric fundamentalist” is just the truth and clear to anyone who has bother to pick up a book from him.
[QUOTE=Susan Blackmore again]
Pinker is an ultra-Darwinist and therefore believes that the ultimate function of our minds is all to do with passing on our genes-not that everything we do now benefits our genes but that our minds and behaviour were designed by and for the genes.
[/QUOTE]
You should re-read Pinker’s “My Genome, my self” article [

Last fall I submitted to the latest high-tech way to bare your soul. I had my genome sequenced and am allowing it to be posted on the Internet, along with my medical history.(snip)

the project seeks to engage geneticists in a worldwide effort to sift through the genetic and environmental predictors of medical, physical and behavioral traits.(snip)

In the 20th century, many intellectuals embraced the idea that babies are blank slates that are inscribed by parents and society. It allowed them to distance themselves from toxic doctrines like that of a superior race, the eugenic breeding of a better species or a genetic version of the Twinkie Defense in which individuals or society could evade responsibility by saying that it’s all in the genes. When it came to human behavior, the attitude toward genetics was “Don’t go there.” Those who did go there found themselves picketed, tarred as Nazis and genetic determinists(snip)

Though the 20th century saw horrific genocides inspired by Nazi pseudoscience about genetics and race, it also saw horrific genocides inspired by Marxist pseudoscience about the malleability of human nature.(snip)

Nor should the scare word “determinism” get in the way of understanding our genetic roots. For some conditions, like Huntington’s disease, genetic determinism is simply correct: everyone with the defective gene who lives long enough will develop the condition.

](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?_r=1)

Oh yes, from your link: “Please note that many of the people listed as group members reject the ideology espoused by Sailer and other members.”

It’s quite possible that Pinker does reject the ideology espoused by Sailer and other members. It doesn’t change the fact that he has close ties the racists in “Human Biodiversity Institute,” nor does it change the fact that he cites and collaborates with Sailer on many issues. If we are talking about a subject like race (or sex, and sexual orientation) I’d like to think that this is relevant.

I didn’t say I agreed with the book or its authors. I’m using it as an example of the way that modern genome studies are being used to swing the conversation toward genetic evidence. They give dozens, possibly hundreds, of references to findings from genome studies that have to be addressed. Unless you read what’s out there, your understanding of the controversy will be limited. As yours seems to be.

Oh, then perhaps you can educate me and compound on those findings? I’m always up for increasing my understanding.

[orcenio]

@mswas

It’s interesting how Gladwell inspires such true believer status in his readership. I knew he kind of had a cult figure status but I didn’t realize it was this deep.

Anyway, as long as we’re gonna judge by ad hominem, absent evidence to the contrary, I will side with Pinker all the way before Gladwell.

The only “true believer” is you. Can’t stand that someone is taking the piss out of Pinker, eh? You can crap on Gladwell any day for all I care…

ETA - Oh and athelas, barely saw him there…

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@orcenio

Oh, then perhaps you can educate me and compound on those findings? I’m always up for increasing my understanding.

Dude, it’s a whole book with dozens or possibly hundreds of examples. Read it. I can’t summarize it except to say that it’s entire intent is biological determinism based on findings from genome studies.

And if you don’t think that scientists, real scientists, have gone back and forth from nature to nurture over and over again then you must be very young.

[WordMan]

Hmm - go on a business trip, check back in, and sure enough, the thread has gone places I would never have expected. Cool.

Look, Gladwell sees himself as an entertainer and provocateur and structures his articles accordingly. I have heard him say that he is not trying to provide definitive answers as much as to start conversations. (He certainly did his job here! ;))

Pinker sees himself as a scientist, thinker and educator and is judging Gladwell on that basis. And, as most posters seem to believe here, Gladwell’s work doesn’t stand up to that level of scrutiny. It wasn’t meant to be submitted to a thesis review board and Gladwell would be the first to admit that he crafts his examples and data citations to achieve his ends (see above) not push out scientific boundaries.

The problem is that Gladwell is a bit too good at what he does and his readers tend to give his discussion-starter ideas more weight than they warrant from a scientific inquiry point of view. Pinker seems to have felt the need to take Gladwell down a notch as some form of public service “hey kids, don’t try playing this fast and loose with statistics at home”…

I just found Pinker’s smack-down funny, but understood that he was rejecting Gladwell’s assertions based on a level of scientific intent and rigor that Gladwell never aspired to.

My $.02

[orcenio]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Dude, it’s a whole book with dozens or possibly hundreds of examples. Read it. I can’t summarize it except to say that it’s entire intent is biological determinism based on findings from genome studies.

Spoken like a lazy disciple. I just thought that since my understanding was so obviously “limited” to you that you could educate me on one of their finer points.

As for me not reading their book… perhaps I have some more important things to do with my time then sift through and interpret a collection of dubious rants, fringe theories, and sensationalized comments by some ravings racists?

Their die hard adherence to old racial paradigms, and controversial fringe theories is a secret to no one; one of the unfortunate consequences of such a mentality is to contaminate real genetic data/findings and inject bizarre “race angles” to them. Hell, even Pinker is wise enough to spade a spade and draw the line between what is science fact and what is science fiction.
[QUOTE=Pinker]
Whether or not these hypotheses hold up (the evidence for gender differences is reasonably good, for ethnic and racial differences much less so)
[/QUOTE]

And if you don’t think that scientists, real scientists, have gone back and forth from nature to nurture over and over again then you must be very young.

The nature vs nurture fight is a nice sound bite and a dead angle. You don’t need to be a young scientist to figure this out.

[Chen019]

What these gits seem to ignore/hand wave is the scientific consensus about race: that humans are highly genetically similar

The scientific consensus? This is not only false, but overlooks genomic studies from the past 10 years. For starters you may wish to consider this paper by Dr. Hua Tang entitled: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies.

*Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002).

Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.
*

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in...

Represent each individual human by their DNA sequence. When aggregated, they cluster into readily identifiable groups. This has been known for 40 years now, although the technology and methods of analysis continue to improve. Below are results from 1966, 1978 and 2008.

Genetic clustering: 40 years of progress

[Chen019]

I would just add that the reality that genes cluster differently across groups is why there are efforts to encourage a more progressive mindset to handle future genetic findings - such as this piece published in Nature by University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn & economist Lanny Ebenstein entitled - “Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity.”

*Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour3. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well-intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data (see box).
*

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/Lahn.pdf

Pinker himself, and Peter Singer have also made contributions in this respect.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1999----02.htm

[WordMan]

Interesting stuff, but not necessarily on point for the thread.

To me, the basic issue is Gladwell’s pop-provocation vs. Pinker’s leave-it-to-the-pro’s dismissal…what Pinker thinks about genetics is not material to the OP…

…IMHO.

[Chen019]

To me, the basic issue is Gladwell’s pop-provocation vs. Pinker’s leave-it-to-the-pro’s dismissal…what Pinker thinks about genetics is not material to the OP…

I agree, I was just replying to the misleading comments by orcenio.

I don’t think Pinker was suggesting leaving it to the pro’s, just that Gladwell tends to simplify information to fit his particular narrative. There was a good take on it here too. The Igon Value Problem | monkey's uncle

[WordMan]

@Chen019

To me, the basic issue is Gladwell’s pop-provocation vs. Pinker’s leave-it-to-the-pro’s dismissal…what Pinker thinks about genetics is not material to the OP…

I agree, I was just replying to the misleading comments by orcenio.

I don’t think Pinker was suggesting leaving it to the pro’s, just that Gladwell tends to simplify information to fit his particular narrative. There was a good take on it here too. http://monkeysuncle.stanford.edu/?p=541

Got it and yeah, I agree with your summary. I gotta run to a lunch meeting but will follow up on that link later…

[mswas]

@orcenio

The only “true believer” is you. Can’t stand that someone is taking the piss out of Pinker, eh? You can crap on Gladwell any day for all I care..

LOL nah, not a true believer, show me evidence that Pinker is wrong and I’ll go with it, but with the absence of evidence, I just have more respect for Pinker than Gladwell.

[Chen019]

Steven Pinker replies:

What Malcolm Gladwell calls a “lonely ice floe” is what psychologists call “the mainstream.” In a 1997 editorial in the journal Intelligence, 52 signatories wrote, “I.Q. is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic and social outcomes.” Similar conclusions were affirmed in a unanimous blue-ribbon report by the American Psychological Association, and in recent studies (some focusing on outliers) by Dean Simonton, David Lubinski and others.

Gladwell is right, of course, to privilege peer-reviewed articles over blogs. But sports is a topic in which any academic must answer to an army of statistics-savvy amateurs, and in this instance, I judged, the bloggers were correct. They noted, among other things, that Berri and Simmons weakened their “weak correlation” (Gladwell described it in the New Yorker essay reprinted in “What the Dog Saw” as “no connection”) by omitting the lower-drafted quarterbacks who, unsurprisingly, turned out not to merit many plays. In any case, the relevance to teacher selection (the focus of the essay) remains tenuous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Letters-t-LETSGOTOTHET_LETTERS.html?_r=1

[Chen019]

Orcenio, are you going to defend your earlier comments?

Anyway, another take on the Pinker/Gladwell scuffle.

[7600+] HD Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com

[WordMan]

@Chen019

Orcenio, are you going to defend your earlier comments?

Anyway, another take on the Pinker/Gladwell scuffle.

[7600+] HD Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com

Interesting quote from the article where the writer summarizes the overall kerfuffle in a Gladwellian way - an absolute, terse statement that covers up a lot of gray area:

To try my hand at Gladwell’s technique: Conventional wisdom suggests that if getting Gladwell’s level of popular traction means sacrificing aspects of both science and journalism, it might be better to have no Malcolm Gladwells at all.

But I don’t think that’s the case. Both scientists and journalists want it all, but it may be that the subjects Gladwell loves to cover have just too many moving parts and externalities to condense into a popular article. Perhaps we’d all be happier if he would just admit that.

[China_Guy]

The second half of his books seemed to be half baked filler. Was it Blinked where he goes on about the rice culture in China? Ignoring of course the 50% or so of China that doesn’t grow rice, and ignoring looking at some of the other rice cultures like Thailand, Burma and the Philippines. IIRC, he gives it a “more research is needed on this thesis” and leaves it there.

Net net, the times had a good review

[WordMan]

@China_Guy

The second half of his books seemed to be half baked filler. Was it Blinked where he goes on about the rice culture in China? Ignoring of course the 50% or so of China that doesn’t grow rice, and ignoring looking at some of the other rice cultures like Thailand, Burma and the Philippines. IIRC, he gives it a “more research is needed on this thesis” and leaves it there.

Net net, the times had a good review

You’re thinking of Outliers, which actually should be re-titled “Nurture” since his basic assertion is that Environment has a much more significant impact on the path of an individual than most folks might suspect. He uses China’s rice-growing culture as an illustration about how basic habits and mindsets one has based on that society’s agricultural tradition can influence how work is approached overall…