Did you actually read the whole review? That is how she describes her.
You mean the blog of a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota. Not very impressive replies at all from you so far.
“He’s a credit to his race!” “What race is that?” “The 400-yard dash.”
-Statler and Waldorf
It is amazing what Statler and Waldorf know, they even heckle the crackpot ideas that are proposed by some in this thread:
That is actually a blog from a member of http://www.cisv.org/about/who.html
http://www.cisv.org/about/history.html
She enjoyed a presentation by Cochran & says her description of the ideas in the book is basically a cartoon outline. That’s slightly different from the disparaging description you used.
Well, I think I’ve made it very clear that there are obvious reasons why the ashkenazi hypothesis hasn’t been empirically tested. And as I said, it is quite amusing seeing someone who regularly refers to the social implications of research, attempting to deny this.
Has Myers provided any comment on the book itself? From the link you provided it seems he hasn’t even read their paper on Ashkenazi intelligence. He’s just read the LA Times article. If he’d read the paper he might better understand their argument regarding selection.
This is what I get from your website: “I think we should try and get rid of the term “race” altogether, because - I’ll be blunt here - simply accepting the concept of “race” is racism.”
I think the crackpot idea is that any acknowledgment of race, and particularly racial differences in intelligence, crime, and sexual responsibility is immoral. These differences exist everywhere. They always have. They are the same differences.
A person’s race can be determined by his DNA or his skeleton.
We should not get rid of the term “race.” We should get rid of the term “racism.” It inhibits a candid discussion of social problems that are not going away.
And what are those differences? According to you, of course. And what would YOU do to deal with those differences, if they exists?
First of all, the differences do exist, and cannot accurately be attributed to environment. Second, I would welcome a honest and public discussion of those differences. Third…
Well, let’s talk about the differences, and then decide what to do about them.
I asked you very clearly what were those differences… according to YOU, of course.
What your points here show is Acute iffinitis. What I conclude from your accusation of “it is quite amusing seeing someone who regularly refers to the social implications of research, attempting to deny this.” Is that you have not really thought about it.
The conclusion I get is that if the people that think that they are being unfairly blocked to do research had a point, they would had already made moves like the deniers of global warming or the supporters of creationism do, and that is push the issue so far that is taken to court, investigated by the authorities or they themselves take it to court or get a freedom of information order.
The ones claiming that their research is being unfairly blocked on these “race” issues do not have a candle to hold to the creationists or global warming deniers; of course, we all know how the crackpots lost all cases in the other subjects so I can make the educated guess that the ones launching the accusations against academia do not have a good leg to stand. I will have to say that so far the “race realists” mentioned are really pathetic.
Those who deny that well documented racial differences in crime rates, average intelligence, and sexual responsibility are both significant and of genetic origin are the left wing equivalent of those on the right who deny global warming. A difference is that those who deny global warming do not try to suppress the efforts of others to publicize the facts about global warming. Those who deny that genetics is important to the human condition do try to suppress those who maintain otherwise.
So, be clear. What are those differeces that you preach. What races are more criminal than others? What races are more intelligent than others? Say it so.
How likely is it that heritable traits have helped modern human groups displace other modern human groups in the last 40k years?
I think you’re the one who has not really thought about it. A court order? On an academic issue about the history of ashkenazi intelligence. Seriously, wtf?
What is more incredible is that you, yourself, have raised the social concerns of some research. There are numerous comments from researchers in the LA Times and NY Mag articles which indicate why there would be resistance to doing that kind of research. Also, you’re basically saying Cochran is lying about his account of discussions with potential researchers. You are not approaching this debate in good faith.
You keep trying to associate the position of these guys with creationists or global warming deniers, which is absurd. Honestly, Steven Pinker is very much a member of mainstream academia.
The point is clear, if he is not lying he has a chance to correct a wrong…
Unless there was no there there.
So is Pat Michaels, and like Pinker he does cover his say so with plenty of caveats so as to not fall off the mainstream.
And as Pat Michaels also tells many deniers how clueless they are on some subjects, (Like the “there has been no warming in the last ten years”) so it is Pinker clarifying on many occasions that guys like New Deal Democrat are wasting their time when they try to use their research to push reprehensible social agendas.
Nope, they have to demonstrate that that accusation is the truth. At least the creationists and global warming deniers do try to get to the bottom of the “blocked research” that they think it took place.
Until then I have to say that it is clear that racist ideas are fading in academia, as even the best defenders that have been produced are either racist books, or books with admitted incomplete research, or researchers that would not give you the time of the day once you tell them to follow your societal solutions that would have to be applied if your say so’s were accurate.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/01/pinker-on-genes-and-the-brain/
[QUOTE=Pinker]
Many of the dystopian fears raised by personal genomics are simply out of touch with the complex and probabilistic nature of genes. Forget about the hyperparents who want to implant math genes in their unborn children, the “Gattaca” corporations that scan people’s DNA to assign them to castes, the employers or suitors who hack into your genome to find out what kind of worker or spouse you’d make. Let them try; they’d be wasting their time.
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty breathtaking that you’re even suggesting he is just making that up. As I said, you don’t appear to be entering into this discussion in good faith.
And no, it’s not clear that there is a chance to “correct a wrong”. If people don’t want to do research you can’t force them to participate and fund it.
Piffle.
You are avoiding the middle, he could sincerely believe that he was blocked by unethical researchers, but the trouble is, it is also likely that he is wrong. So what to do? No, going running to report how bad he is feeling is not good enough. If there are shenanigans the issue should be pressed, that it has not when other fringe ideas can move mountains to get to the “perpetrators that are blocking our research” does tell me that it is also likely that the “affected” researchers are not telling the whole history.
That is not the point, the point is the accusation that something unhanded took place to prevent that research from happening. The funding and prestige of the possible perpetrators should be on the line with such an accusation. Now, if most researchers just sincerely thought that the research is bananas, sure, you can not force them.
David Buss, who is pretty well known in evolutionary psychology. wrote us a letter about our book. Here is what he said: "I just finished reading your amazing book on 10,000 explosion. By far the best book I’ve read in a long time, and one that has substantially altered my thinking on evolutionary psychology, especially on the adaptive nature of individual differences. I’m making it required reading for all of my graduate students. It’s a real eye opener. "
Michael O’Brien liked it, but then he’s only a professor of anthropology and Dean of the college of arts and sciences at the University of Missouri. Here are a few quotes from his review: "For anyone interested in human evolution, this book is an absolute must read. If you formed your opinions on human evolution by reading any of the thousands of books out there, you need to throw out those opinions and start again. … The only downside to this highly recommended book is that this reviewer did not write it! "
Jim Watson liked our Ashkenazi paper, but I don’t know if he has the chops to compete with P.Z. Myers. Jim Crow thought it was reasonable: “Likewise, I think that Cochran et al. are fully entitled to consider the reasons for Jewish intelligence and I found their arguments interesting.” But then, what does Jim Crow (as in Crow and Kimura) know about population genetics, compared to you-know-who?
I’m beginning to think the writer is not reading much of what we are saying.
BTW we are still waiting for your answer on what **orcenio **asked to you 2 times already.
You’re overlooking the various prohibitions/regulations in terms of how research may impact on different groups. For example, consider the Human Subjects Compliance guidelines, a step in the process of IRB approval (also look up the broader impact sections in terms of applications to the National Science Foundation).
I’m late to the party, in part because I saw this thread a couple days ago but delayed posting until I had given it some thought. One point which strikes me is that Cochran’s essay on Ashkenazi intelligence seems to take an opposite approach from the book (which, I should mention, I’ve not read and know only from the posts here). Instead of arguing for large populations experiencing mutations, he argues for a relatively small and insular population experiencing selection pressures. Whether the latter thesis goes through is one question - and there are good reasons to doubt it - but it seems to me the two approaches are different, even contradictory.
Which raises the issue, which IIRC was Gould’s main objection to speculations on evolutionary causation, that it’s no good to work backwards from observation to explanation, as the whole exercise becomes ad hoc. Ashkenazi Jews succeeded, there must have been a reason, Cochran looks for factors which fit, hits on moneylending (in which only a small fraction of Jews partcipated, especially in Eastern Europe, to only speculative fitness advantage) and asserts QED. I have to agree with Gould (and Popper). This isn’t science. The thesis might be true and it might not. The evidence is so vague, however, that one can’t reasonably draw a conclusion.
That said, I will mention that I disagree with Gould on an important point. One may stipulate (as seems likely) that substantially all the genes with which we operate today already were in existence 50,000 years ago. And it’s unlikely mutations in the last 10,000 years were important, almost beyond question that any in the last 200 years were. It’s quite another thing, though, to assume frequencies haven’t changed. So, to assert, as Gould does, that everything since is culture can’t really be sustained. Both culture and selection (and to a much lesser degree mutation) have been operating, which is why parsing out these things is so difficult.