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.
I have a feeling the people who are shifting are the idiot readers of popular scientists, not the scientists themselves.
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.
You should re-read Pinker’s “My Genome, my self” article [
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*
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.
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).
*
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…
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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…
You can crap on Gladwell any day for all I care…